Palliative and end-of-life care in nephrology: moving from observations to interventions

Predictors of Specialty Outpatient Palliative Care Utilization Among Persons With Serious Illness

CONTEXT

Outpatient Palliative Care (OPC) benefits persons living with serious illness, yet barriers exist in utilization.

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors associated with OPC clinic utilization.

METHODS

Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access is a multicenter, randomized control trial comparing two models of palliative care for patients recruited from the Emergency Department (ED): nurse-led telephonic case management and OPC (one visit a month for six months). Patients were aged 50+ with advanced cancer or end-stage organ failure and recruited from 19 EDs. Using a mixed effects hurdle model, we analyzed patient, provider, clinic and healthcare system factors associated with OPC utilization.

RESULTS

Among the 603 patients randomized to OPC, about half (53.6%) of patients attended at least one clinic visit. Those with less than high school education were less likely to attend an initial visit than those with a college degree or higher (aOR 0.44; CI 0.23, 0.85), as were patients who required considerable assistance (aOR 0.45; CI 0.25, 0.82) or had congestive heart failure only (aOR 0.46; CI 0.26, 0.81). Those with higher symptom burden had a higher attendance at the initial visit (aOR 1.05; CI 1.00, 1.10). Reduced follow up visit rates were demonstrated for those of older age (aRR 0.90; CI 0.82, 0.98), female sex (aRR 0.84; CI 0.71, 0.99), and those that were never married (aRR 0.62; CI 0.52, 0.87).

CONCLUSION

Efforts to improve OPC utilization should focus on those with lower education, more functional limitations, older age, female sex, and those with less social support. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03325985.

Advance Care Planning Documentation and Intensity of Care at the End of Life for Adults With Congestive Heart Failure, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Both Illnesses

CONTEXT

Heart failure (HF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are associated with high morbidity and mortality, especially in combination, yet little is known about the impact of these conditions together on end-of-life care.

OBJECTIVES

Compare end-of-life care and advance care planning (ACP) documentation among patients with both HF and CKD to those with either condition.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of deceased patients (2010-2017) with HF and CKD (n = 1673), HF without CKD (n = 2671), and CKD without HF (n = 1706), excluding patients with cancer or dementia. We compared hospitalizations and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions in the last 30 days of life, hospital deaths, and ACP documentation >30 days before death.

RESULTS

39% of patients with HF and CKD were hospitalized and 33% were admitted to the ICU in the last 30 days vs. 30% and 28%, respectively, for HF, and 26% and 23% for CKD. Compared to patients with both conditions, those with only 1 were less likely to be admitted to the hospital [HF: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.72, 95%CI 0.63-0.83; CKD: aOR 0.63, 95%CI 0.53-0.75] and ICU (HF: aOR 0.83, 95%CI 0.71-0.94; CKD: aOR 0.68, 95%CI 0.56-0.80) and less likely to have ACP documentation (aOR 0.53, 95%CI 0.47-0.61 and aOR 0.70, 95%CI 0.60-0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Decedents with both HF and CKD had more ACP documentation and received more intensive end-of-life care than those with only 1 condition. These findings suggest that patients with co-existing HF and CKD may benefit from interventions to ensure care received aligns with their goals.

Integrating Conservative kidney management Options and advance care Planning Education (COPE) into routine CKD care: a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Predialysis education for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) typically focuses narrowly on haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis as future treatment options. However, patients who are older or seriously ill may not want to pursue dialysis and/or may not benefit from this treatment. Conservative kidney management, a reasonable alternative treatment, and advance care planning (ACP) are often left out of patient education and shared decision-making. In this study, we will pilot an educational intervention (Conservative Kidney Management Options and Advance Care Planning Education-COPE) to improve knowledge of conservative kidney management and ACP among patients with advanced CKD who are older and/or have poor functional status.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a single-centre pilot randomised controlled trial at an academic centre in Philadelphia, PA. Eligible patients will have: age ≥70 years and/or poor functional status (as defined by Karnofsky Performance Index Score <70), advanced CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate<20 mL/min/1.73 m²), prefer to speak English during clinical encounters and self-report as black or white race. Enrolled patients will be randomised 1:1, with stratification by race, to receive enhanced usual care or usual care and in-person education about conservative kidney management and ACP (COPE). The primary outcome is change in knowledge of CKM and ACP. We will also explore intervention feasibility and acceptability, change in communication of preferences and differences in the intervention's effects on knowledge and communication of preferences by race. We will assess outcomes at baseline, immediately post-education and at 2 and 12 weeks.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Pennsylvania. We will obtain written informed consent from all participants. The results from this work will be presented at academic conferences and disseminated through peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under NCT03229811.

Barriers to Conservative Management Conversations: Perceptions of Nephrologists and Fellows-in-Training

Background: Not all treatments are appropriate for all individuals with kidney failure (KF). Studies suggest that conversations surrounding end-of-life decisions occur too late or not at all. Objectives: The aim of this research was to identify perceived barriers to such discussions among nephrologists and nephrology fellows to determine if barriers differ by experience level. Design: Phase I consisted of semistructured telephone interviews with nephrologists and fellows. Phase II included focus groups with nominal group technique in which providers ranked barriers to discussions about not initiating/withholding dialysis (NIWD) or discontinuing dialysis (DD). Setting/Subjects: U.S. community-based nephrologists and nephrology fellows. Results: Seven interviews were conducted with each group (n = 14) in phase I. Many barriers cited were similar among providers, however, differences were related to fellows' position as trainees citing the "reaction of their attending/supervising physician or other providers" as a barrier to NIWD and "lacking their attending physician's support" as a barrier to DD. Six focus groups were conducted, nephrologists (n = 22) and fellows (n = 18), in phase II. The highest ranked barrier to NIWD for nephrologists was "discordant opinions among patient and family"; fellows ranked "time to hold conversation" highest. Nephrologists' highest barrier to DD was the "finality of the decision (death)"; fellows ranked the "inertia of the clinical encounter" highest. Conclusions: Capturing the perspectives of nephrologists and fellows concerning the barriers to conservative management of patients with KF may inform the development of targeted education/training interventions by experience level focused on communication skills, conflict resolution, and negotiation.

Use of Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders for Critically Ill Patients with ESKD

BACKGROUND

Despite having high comorbidity rates and shortened life expectancy, patients with ESKD may harbor unrealistically optimistic expectations about their prognoses. Whether this affects resuscitation orders is unknown.

METHODS

To determine whether do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders differ among patients with ESKD compared with other critically ill patients, including those with diseases of other major organs, we investigated DNR orders on admission to intensive care units (ICUs) among 106,873 patients in the United States.

RESULTS

Major organ disease uniformly associated with increased risk of hospital mortality, particularly for cirrhosis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.67; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.30 to 3.08), and ESKD (aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.65). Compared with critically ill patients without major organ disease, patients with stroke, cancer, heart failure, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cirrhosis were statistically more likely to have a DNR order on ICU admission; those with ESKD were not. Findings were similar when comparing patients with a single organ disease with those without organ disease. The disconnect between prognosis and DNR use was most notable among Black patients, for whom ESKD (compared with no major organ disease) was associated with a 62% (aOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.27 to 2.04) higher odds of hospital mortality, but no appreciable difference in DNR utilization (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike patients with diseases of other major organs, critically ill patients with ESKD were not more likely to have a DNR order than patients without ESKD. Whether this reflects a greater lack of advance care planning in the nephrology community, as well as a missed opportunity to minimize potentially needless patient suffering, requires further study.

Achieving equity in dialysis care and outcomes: The role of policies

Socially disadvantaged persons, including racial and ethnic minorities, individuals with low incomes, homeless persons, and non-US citizens bear a disproportionate burden of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Inequities in nephrology referral, vascular access, use of home dialysis modalities, kidney transplantation, and mortality are prominent. Public policies, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, end-stage renal disease Quality Incentive Program, and the Prospective Payment System, were enacted to improve healthcare access and dialysis care. Here, we highlight inequities in dialysis care and outcomes, how current ESKD and other public policies may influence or exacerbate these inequities, and gaps in the literature needed to inform future policies toward achieving equity in ESKD. We give special attention to the 2019 Advancing American Kidney Health Executive Order, which has high potential to radically transform dialysis care.

Serious Illness Treatment Preferences for Older Adults with Advanced CKD

BACKGROUND

Patient-centered care for older adults with CKD requires communication about patient's values, goals of care, and treatment preferences. Eliciting this information requires tools that patients understand and that enable effective communication about their care preferences.

METHODS

Nephrology clinic patients age ≥60 years with stage 4 or 5 nondialysis-dependent CKD selected one of four responses to the question, "If you had a serious illness, what would be important to you?" Condensed versions of the options were, "Live as long as possible;" "Try treatments, but do not suffer;" "Focus on comfort;" or "Unsure." Patients also completed a validated health outcome prioritization tool and an instrument determining the acceptability of end-of-life scenarios. Patient responses to the three tools were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 382 participants, 35% (n=134) selected "Try treatments, but do not suffer;" 33% (n=126) chose "Focus on comfort;" 20% (n=75) opted for "Live as long as possible;" and 12% (n=47) selected "Unsure." Answers were associated with patients' first health outcome priority and acceptability of end-of-life scenarios. One third of patients with a preference to "Focus on comfort" reported that a life on dialysis would not be worth living compared with 5% of those who chose "Live as long as possible" (P<0.001). About 90% of patients agreed to share their preferences with their providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults with advanced CKD have diverse treatment preferences and want to share them. A single treatment preference question correlated well with longer, validated health preference tools and may provide a point of entry for discussions about patient's treatment goals.

Psychosocial Issues and Lifestyle Changes for the Renal Patient

This article provides an overview of the psychosocial issues faced by those with renal disease. The article discusses the physiologic connection between anxiety, depression, and pain-symptoms commonly seen in renal disease and other chronic illnesses. The application of integrative medicine or nonallopathic medicine and its role in the management of anxiety, depression, and pain are presented. Also presented is evidence surrounding several frequently used nonallopathic modalities appropriate for incorporation into a comprehensive management regimen for renal patients to reduce symptom burden. The article concludes with a discussion on the role of palliative care in treatment decisions for renal patients.