A randomized controlled trial protocol testing a decision support intervention for older patients with advanced kidney disease

Nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment as decision-making tool in kidney failure

BACKGROUND

Dialysis might not benefit all older patients with kidney failure, particularly those with multimorbid conditions and frailty. Patients' and healthcare professionals' awareness of the presence of geriatric impairments could improve outcomes by tailoring treatment plans and decisions for individual patients.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals on nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment to fuel decision-making for treatment choices in older patients with kidney failure.

DESIGN

In an exploratory qualitative study using focus groups, participants discussed perspectives on the use and value of nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment for the decision-making process to start or forego dialysis.

PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS

Patients (n = 18) with kidney failure, caregivers (n = 4), and professionals (n = 25) were purposively sampled from 10 hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and inductively analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three main themes emerged that supported or impeded decision-making in kidney failure: (1) patient psycho-social situation; (2) patient-related factors on modality choice; (3) organisation of health care. Patients reported feeling vulnerable due to multiple chronic conditions, old age, experienced losses in life and their willingness to trade longevity for quality of life. Professionals recognised the added value of nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment in three major themes: (i) facilitating continual holistic assessment, (ii) filling the knowledge gap, and (iii) uncovering important patient characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment was perceived as a valuable tool to identify geriatric impairments in older patients with kidney failure. Integration of its outcomes can facilitate a more holistic approach to inform choices and decisions about kidney replacement therapy.

Healthcare professional education in shared decision making in the context of chronic kidney disease: a scoping review

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) is a collaborative effort between healthcare professionals, individuals with CKD whereby clinical evidence, expected outcomes and potential side-effects are balanced with individual values and beliefs to provide the best mutually decided treatment option. Meaningful SDM is supported by effective training and education. We aimed to identify the available evidence on SDM training and education of healthcare professionals caring for people with chronic kidney disease. We aimed to identify existing training programs and to explore what means are used to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of these educational efforts.

METHODOLOGY

We performed a scoping review to study the effectiveness of training or education about shared decision making of healthcare professionals treating patients with kidney disease. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and APA PsycInfo were searched.

RESULTS

After screening of 1190 articles, 24 articles were included for analysis, of which 20 were suitable for quality appraisal. These included 2 systematic reviews, 1 cohort study, 7 qualitative studies, and 10 studies using mixed methods. Study quality was varied with high quality (n = 5), medium quality (n = 12), and low quality (n = 3) studies. The majority of studies (n = 11) explored SDM education for nurses, and physicians (n = 11). Other HCP profiles included social workers (n = 6), dieticians (n = 4), and technicians (n = 2). Topics included education on SDM in withholding of dialysis, modality choice, patient engagement, and end-of-life decisions.

LIMITATIONS

We observed significant heterogeneity in study design and varied quality of the data. As the literature search is restricted to evidence published between January 2000 and March 2021, relevant literature outside of this time window has not been taken into account.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on training and education of SDM for healthcare professionals taking care of patients with CKD is limited. Curricula are not standardized, and educational and training materials do not belong to the public domain. The extent to which interventions have improved the process of shared-decision making is tested mostly by pre-post testing of healthcare professionals, whereas the impact from the patient perspective for the most part remains untested.

Understanding how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions: a realist review

Background

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a trained healthcare provider to help people prepare to actively participate in making healthcare decisions. This study aimed to understand how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions.

Methods

We followed the realist review methodology for this study. This study was built on a Cochrane systematic review of the effectiveness of decision coaching interventions for people facing healthcare decisions. It involved six iterative steps: (1) develop the initial program theory; (2) search for evidence; (3) select, appraise, and prioritize studies; (4) extract and organize data; (5) synthesize evidence; and (6) consult stakeholders and draw conclusions.

Results

We developed an initial program theory based on decision coaching theories and stakeholder feedback. Of the 2594 citations screened, we prioritized 27 papers for synthesis based on their relevance rating. To refine the program theory, we identified 12 context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Essential mechanisms for decision coaching to be initiated include decision coaches’, patients’, and clinicians’ commitments to patients’ involvement in decision making and decision coaches’ knowledge and skills (four CMOs). CMOs during decision coaching are related to the patient (i.e., willing to confide, perceiving their decisional needs are recognized, acquiring knowledge, feeling supported), and the patient-decision coach interaction (i.e., exchanging information, sharing a common understanding of patient’s values) (five CMOs). After decision coaching, the patient’s progress in making or implementing a values-based preferred decision can be facilitated by the decision coach’s advocacy for the patient, and the patient’s deliberation upon options (two CMOs). Leadership support enables decision coaches to have access to essential resources to fulfill their role (one CMOs).

Discussion

In the refined program theory, decision coaching works when there is strong leadership support and commitment from decision coaches, clinicians, and patients. Decision coaches need to be capable in coaching, encourage patients’ participation, build a trusting relationship with patients, and act as a liaison between patients and clinicians to facilitate patients’ progress in making or implementing an informed values-based preferred option. More empirical studies, especially qualitative and process evaluation studies, are needed to further refine the program theory.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-02007-0.

Treatment decisions for older adults with advanced chronic kidney disease

Dialysis initiation rates among older adults, aged 75 years or greater, are increasing at a faster rate than for younger age groups. Older adults with advanced CKD (eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2) typically lose renal function slowly, often suffer from significant comorbidity and thus may die from associated comorbidities before they require dialysis.A patient's pattern of renal function loss over time in relation to their underlying comorbidities can serve as a guide to the probability of a future dialysis requirement. Most who start dialysis, initiate treatment "early", at an estimated glomerulofiltration rate (eGFR) >10 ml/min/1.73 m2 and many initiate dialysis in hospital, often in association with an episode of acute renal failure. In the US older adults start dialysis at a mean e GFR of 12.6 ml/min/1.73 m2 and 20.6% die within six months of dialysis initiation. In both the acute in hospital and outpatient settings, many older adults appear to be initiating dialysis for non-specific, non-life threatening symptoms and clinical contexts. Observational data suggests that dialysis does not provide a survival benefit for older adults with poor mobility and high levels of comorbidity. To optimize the care of this population, early and repeat shared decision making conversations by health care providers, patients, and their families should consider the risks, burdens, and benefits of dialysis versus conservative management, as well as the patient specific symptoms and clinical situations that could justify dialysis initiation. The potential advantages and disadvantages of dialysis therapy should be considered in conjunction with each patient's unique goals and priorities.In conclusion, when considering the morbidity and quality of life impact associated with dialysis, many older adults may prefer to delay dialysis until there is a definitive indication or may opt for conservative management without dialysis. This approach can incorporate all CKD treatments other than dialysis, provide psychosocial and spiritual support and active symptom management and may also incorporate a palliative care approach with less medical monitoring of lab parameters and more focus on the use of drug therapies directed to relief of a patient's symptoms.