Using root cause analysis as a tool to reduce central venous catheters in haemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Haemodialysis remains the most common modality of renal replacement therapy. National and international guidelines continue to promote arteriovenous fistulas or grafts as the preferred vascular access for haemodialysis, given the increased risks associated with use of central venous catheters (CVCs). Our renal centre pursues a 'fistula first' culture and uses root cause analysis and a patient safety incident based approach to meet the recommended standards of minimal CVC use in dialysis patients.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective observational review looking at patterns of CVC use amongst our patients to identify themes and changes over time. Using data collected over a 5 year period, we examined 100 patient safety incidents involving CVC use in planned haemodialysis patients. We used a contributory factors framework to identify systemic contributors to each incident.

RESULTS

During the study period our centre achieved the national standard of at least 60% of incident dialysis patients commencing planned haemodialysis via arteriovenous access. About 26% of cases of CVC use in incident dialysis patients were deemed potentially avoidable. The most common contributory factor identified in these cases was poor communication.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a root cause analysis based methodology to examine CVC use in haemodialysis is a novel approach to quality improvement in this area. Our methodology can be used as a framework by other centres to optimise the provision of safe, effective, and timely vascular access for dialysis, with multiple benefits for both renal services and individual patients.

Vascular access types in patients starting hemodialysis after failed kidney transplant: does close nephrology follow-up matter?

BACKGROUND

Native arteriovenous fistulae (AVFs) are preferred while central venous catheters (CVCs) are least suitable vascular access (VA) in patients requiring hemodialysis (HD). Unfortunately, around 80% of patients start HD with CVCs. Late referral to nephrologist is thought to be a factor responsible for this. We retrospectively analyzed the types of VA at HD initiation in renal transplant recipients followed by nephrologists with failed transplant. If early referral to nephrologist improves AVF use, these patients should have higher prevalence of AVF at HD initiation.

METHODS

All patients who failed their kidney transplants from January 2002 to April 2013 were included in the study. Data regarding planning of VA by nephrologist, documented discussion about renal replacement therapy (RRT), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 6 months and last clinic visit before HD initiation, time of VA referral, and subsequent VA at dialysis initiation were gathered and analyzed.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients failed their transplants during study period. Data were inaccessible in six patients. Eleven patients started peritoneal dialysis (PD) while 66 started HD. Thirty-two had previous functioning VA while 34 needed VA. There were 11/34 patients (32%) with eGFR <15 mL/min at six months while 21/34 (61%) had eGFR <15 mL/min at last clinic visit before HD initiation. Only 11/34 (32%) had documented RRT discussion, 8/34 (24%) had VA referral, and 7/34 (21%) had vein mapping. A total of 30/34 (88.3%) started HD with CVC while 4/34 (11.3%) started HD with AVF (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Early referral to nephrologist by itself may not improve VA care amongst patient with end-stage renal disease.

Looking Beyond "Fistula First" in the Elderly on Hemodialysis

Vascular access preparation, a pervasive challenge in hemodialysis (HD), is emerging as a multidimensional subject in geriatric nephrology. Previously published guidelines declared arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) as the preferred vascular access for all patients on HD. In this article, the benefit-risk evidence for using AVF versus an alternative access (arteriovenous graft [AVG] or tunneled central venous catheter [TCVC]) in the elderly is pondered. Compared to their younger counterparts, the elderly have significantly lower survival rates independent of the vascular access used for HD. Recent studies point to comparable dialysis survival rates between AVF and AVG or TCVC in subgroups of elderly patients, as well as lower rates of access-related infections, and lower catheter dependence after AVG compared to AVF construction in these patients. Comprehensive and longitudinal assessments that integrate comorbidities, physical function, cognitive status, and quality of life to estimate prognosis and assist with vascular access selection ought to be employed. In circumstances where patient survival is limited by comorbidities and functional status, AVF is unlikely to confer meaningful benefits compared to AVG or even TCVC in the ill elderly.