A Survey of Canadian Nephrologists Assessing Prognostication in End-Stage Renal Disease

Nephrology providers' perspective and use of mortality prognostic tools in dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Mortality prognostic tools exist to aid in shared decision making with kidney failure patients but are underutilized. This study aimed to elucidate nephrology providers' practice patterns and understand barriers to prognostic tool use.

METHODS

Nephrology providers (8 physicians and 2 nurse practitioners) at an academic medical center underwent semi-structured interviews regarding their experience and perspective on the utility of mortality prognostic tools. Common themes were identified independently by 2 reviewers using grounded theory. Three six-month mortality prognostic tools were applied to the 279 prevalent dialysis patients that the interviewed providers care for. The C statistic was calculated for each tool via logistic regression and subsequent ROC analysis. Nephrology providers reviewed the performance of the prognostication tools in their own patient population. A post interview reassessed perspectives and any change in attitudes regarding the tools.

RESULTS

Nephrology providers did not use these mortality prognostic tools in their practice. Key barriers identified were provider concern that the tools were not generalizable to their patients, providers' trust in their own clinical judgement over that of a prognostic tool, time constraints, and lack of knowledge about the data behind these tools. When re-interviewed with the results of the three prognostic tools in their patients, providers thought the tools performed as expected, but still did not intend to use the tools in their practice. They reported that these tools are good for populations, but not individual patients. The providers preferred to use clinical gestalt for prognostication.

CONCLUSION

Although several well validated prognostic tools are available for predicting mortality, the nephrology providers studied do not use them in routine practice, even after an educational intervention. Other approaches should be explored to help incorporate prognostication in shared-decision-making for patients receiving dialysis.

Short-term and long-term survival in patients with prevalent haemodialysis-an integrated prognostic model: external validation

OBJECTIVES

Prognostic tools with evidence for external validity in routine clinical practice are needed to align care with patients' preferences and deliver timely supportive services. Current models have limited, if any, evidence for external validity and none have been implemented and evaluated in clinical practice on a large scale. This study sought to provide evidence for external validity in a real life setting of the Cohen prognostic model that integrates actuarial factors with the 'Surprise Question' to assess 6-month, 12-month and 18-month survival of prevalent haemodialysis patients.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of 1372 patients in a Canadian university-based programme between 2010 and 2019. Survival probabilities were compared with observed survival. Discrimination and calibration were assessed through predicted risk-stratified observed survival, cumulative AUC, Somer's Dxy and a calibration slope estimate.

RESULTS

Discrimination performance was moderate with a C statistic of 0.71-0.72 for all three time points. The model overpredicted mortality risk with the best predictive accuracy for 6- month survival. The differences between observed and mean predicted survival at 6 months, 12 months and 18 months were 3.2%, 8.8% and 12.9%, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves stratified by Cox-based risk group showed good discrimination between high-risk and low-risk patients with HR estimates (95% CI): C2 vs C1 3.07 (1.57-5.99), C3 vs C1 5.85 (3.06-11.17), C4 vs C1 13.24 (6.91-25.34)).

CONCLUSIONS

The Cohen prognostic model can be incorporated easily into routine dialysis care to identify patients at high risk for death over 6 months, 12 months and 18 months and help target vulnerable patients for timely supportive care interventions.

Prognostic Models in Nephrology: Where Do We Stand and Where Do We Go from Here? Mapping Out the Evidence in a Scoping Review

Prognostic models can strongly support individualized care provision and well-informed shared decision making. There has been an upsurge of prognostic research in the field of nephrology, but the uptake of prognostic models in clinical practice remains limited. Therefore, we map out the research field of prognostic models for kidney patients and provide directions on how to proceed from here. We performed a scoping review of studies developing, validating, or updating a prognostic model for patients with CKD. We searched all published models in PubMed and Embase and report predicted outcomes, methodological quality, and validation and/or updating efforts. We found 602 studies, of which 30.1% concerned CKD populations, 31.6% dialysis populations, and 38.4% kidney transplantation populations. The most frequently predicted outcomes were mortality ( n =129), kidney disease progression ( n =75), and kidney graft survival ( n =54). Most studies provided discrimination measures (80.4%), but much less showed calibration results (43.4%). Of the 415 development studies, 28.0% did not perform any validation and 57.6% performed only internal validation. Moreover, only 111 models (26.7%) were externally validated either in the development study itself or in an independent external validation study. Finally, in 45.8% of development studies no useable version of the model was reported. To conclude, many prognostic models have been developed for patients with CKD, mainly for outcomes related to kidney disease progression and patient/graft survival. To bridge the gap between prediction research and kidney patient care, patient-reported outcomes, methodological rigor, complete reporting of prognostic models, external validation, updating, and impact assessment urgently need more attention.

Comprehensive conservative care: what doctors say, what patients hear

The demographic evolution of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) has led to the advent of an alternative treatment option to kidney replacement therapy in the past couple of decades. The KDIGO controversies on Kidney Supportive Care called this approach "comprehensive conservative care" (CCC) and defined it as planned holistic patient-centered care for patients with CKD stage 5 that does not include dialysis. Although the benefit of this treatment option is now well-recognized, especially for the elderly, and comorbid and frail patients, its development remains limited in practice. While shared decision-making and advance care planning represent the cornerstones of the CCC approach, one of the main barriers in its development is the perfectible communication between nephrologists and patients, but also between all healthcare professionals involved in the care of advanced CKD patients. As a result, a significant gap has opened up between what doctors say and what patients hear. Indeed, although CCC is reported by nephrologists to be widely available in their facilities, few of their patients say that they have actually heard of it. The objectives of this review are to explore discrepancies between what doctors say and what patients hear, to identify the factors underlying this gap, and to formulate practical proposals for narrowing this gap in practice.

Shared decision making: a personal view from two kidney doctors and a patient

Shared decision making (SDM) combines the clinician's expertise in the treatment of disease with the patient's expertise in their lived experience and what is important to them. All decisions made in the care of patients with kidney disease can potentially be explored through SDM. Adoption of SDM in routine kidney care faces numerous institutional and practical barriers. Patients with chronic disease who have become accustomed to paternalistic care may need support to engage in SDM-even though most patients actively want more involvement in decisions about their care. Nephrologists often underestimate the risks and overestimate the benefits of investigations and treatments and often default to recommending burdensome treatments rather than discussing prognosis openly. Guideline bodies continue to issue recommendations written for healthcare professionals without providing patient decision aids. To mitigate health inequalities, care needs to be taken to provide SDM to all patients, not just the highly health-literate patients least likely to need additional support in decision making. Kidney doctors spend much of their time in the consulting room, and it is unjustifiable that so little attention is paid to the teaching, audit and maintenance of consultation skills. Writing letters to the patient to summarise the consultation rather than sending them a copy of a letter between health professionals sets the tone for a consultation in which the patient is an active partner. Adoption of SDM will require nephrologists to relinquish long-established paternalistic models of care and restructure care around the values and preferences of patients.

Predicting outcomes in chronic kidney disease: needs and preferences of patients and nephrologists

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines on chronic kidney disease (CKD) recommend that nephrologists use clinical prediction models (CPMs). However, the actual use of CPMs seems limited in clinical practice. We conducted a national survey study to evaluate: 1) to what extent CPMs are used in Dutch CKD practice, 2) patients' and nephrologists' needs and preferences regarding predictions in CKD, and 3) determinants that may affect the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with CKD patients to inform the development of two online surveys; one for CKD patients and one for nephrologists. Survey participants were recruited through the Dutch Kidney Patient Association and the Dutch Federation of Nephrology.

RESULTS

A total of 126 patients and 50 nephrologists responded to the surveys. Most patients (89%) reported they had discussed predictions with their nephrologists. They most frequently discussed predictions regarded CKD progression: when they were expected to need kidney replacement therapy (KRT) (n = 81), and how rapidly their kidney function was expected to decline (n = 68). Half of the nephrologists (52%) reported to use CPMs in clinical practice, in particular CPMs predicting the risk of cardiovascular disease. Almost all nephrologists (98%) reported discussing expected CKD trajectories with their patients; even those that did not use CPMs (42%). The majority of patients (61%) and nephrologists (84%) chose a CPM predicting when patients would need KRT in the future as the most important prediction. However, a small portion of patients indicated they did not want to be informed on predictions regarding CKD progression at all (10-15%). Nephrologists not using CPMs (42%) reported they did not know CPMs they could use or felt that they had insufficient knowledge regarding CPMs. According to the nephrologists, the most important determinants for the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice were: 1) understandability for patients, 2) integration as standard of care, 3) the clinical relevance.

CONCLUSION

Even though the majority of patients in Dutch CKD practice reported discussing predictions with their nephrologists, CPMs are infrequently used for this purpose. Both patients and nephrologists considered a CPM predicting CKD progression most important to discuss. Increasing awareness about existing CPMs that predict CKD progression may result in increased adoption in clinical practice. When using CPMs regarding CKD progression, nephrologists should ask whether patients want to hear predictions beforehand, since individual patients' preferences vary.

Facility Variation and Predictors of Do Not Resuscitate Orders of Hemodialysis Patients in Canada: DOPPS

BACKGROUND

Life expectancy in patients with end-stage kidney disease treated with hemodialysis (HD) is limited, and as such, the presence of an advanced care directive (ACD) may improve the quality of death as experienced for patients and families. Strategies to discuss and implement ACDs are limited with little being known about the status of Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders in the Canadian HD population.

OBJECTIVES

Using data from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS), we set out to (1) examine the variability in DNR orders across Canada and its largest province, Ontario and (2) identify clinical and functional status measures associated with a DNR order.

DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the DOPPS Canada Phase 4 to 6 from 2009 to 2017.

SETTING

DOPPS facilities in Canada.

PATIENTS

All adults (>18 years) who initiated chronic HD with a documented ACD were included.

MEASUREMENTS

ACD and DNR orders.

METHODS

Descriptive statistics were compared for baseline characteristics (demographics, comorbidities, medications, facility characteristics, and patient functional status) and DNR status. The crude proportion of patients per facility with a DNR order was calculated across Canada and Ontario. Functional status was determined by activities of daily living and components of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL)-validated questionnaire. We used generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to create sequential multivariable models (demographics, comorbidities, and functional status) of variables associated with DNR status.

RESULTS

A total of 1556 (96% of total) patients treated with HD had a documented ACD and were included. A total of 10% of patients had a DNR order. The crude variation of DNR status differed considerably across facilities within Canada, between Ontario and non-Ontario, and within Ontario (interprovince variation = 6.3%-17.1%, Ontario vs non-Ontario = 8.2% vs 11.7%, intraprovincial variation [Ontario] = 1%-26%). Patients with a DNR order were more commonly older, white, with cardiac comorbidities, with less or shorter predialysis care compared with those without a DNR order. Patients with a DNR order reported lower energy, more difficulty with transfers, meal preparation, household tasks, and financial management. In a multivariate model, age, cardiac disease, stroke, dialysis duration, and intradialytic weight gain were associated with DNR status.

LIMITATIONS

Relatively small number of events or measures in certain categories.

CONCLUSIONS

A large inter- and intraprovincial (Ontario) variation was observed regarding DNR orders across Canada highlighting areas for potential quality improvement. While functional status did not appear to have a bearing on the presence of a DNR order, the presence of various comorbidities was associated with the presence of a DNR order.