Asking the right questions: towards a person-centered conception of shared decision-making regarding treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease in older patients

Geriatric Assessment in Older Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease: A Key to Personalized Care and Shared Decision-Making-A Narrative Review

As the global population ages, so too does the prevalence of older people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Helping people age well with CKD and supporting older people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) to make personalized decisions regarding kidney replacement therapy (KRT) or conservative care (CC) are an essential component of care. However, these factors are relatively underreported in both the fields of nephrology and geriatric medicine, and prospective, randomized evidence is lacking. This narrative review article, authored by both nephrologists and geriatricians, discusses specific geriatric issues that arise in older people with CKD and why they matter. The available evidence for KRT or CC in older people with frailty is outlined. The importance of performing a comprehensive geriatric assessment, or a modified nephrogeriatric assessment, to ensure a systematic evaluation of the person's medical problems and life needs, goals, and values is described. We consider different models of nephrogeriatric care and how they may be implemented. Kidney supportive care-addressing an individual's symptoms and overall well-being alongside the more traditional nephrological principles of preventing disease progression and optimizing risk-is highlighted throughout the article. We outline ways of identifying the later stages of a person's disease journey, when transition to palliative care is indicated, and elaborate methods of preparing patients for this through multidisciplinary advance care planning. Finally, we discuss practice and systems for nephrogeriatric care in five different European countries and consider future directions, challenges, and highlights in this rapidly evolving, increasingly relevant field.

Mind the gap in kidney care: Translating what we know into what we do

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the gap in kidney care: translating what we know into what we do

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Improving Patient-Centered Care for End-Stage Renal Disease Patients at a Community Palliative Setting

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a complex medical condition growing fastest in Americans 65 years and older. Despite its chronic nature, fewer than 10% of these patients have had advanced care planning. A chart audit (n = 20) of the palliative patients at a community palliative program revealed that no patient had a conversation about prognostication, 10% (n = 2) about the burden of kidney disease, 30% (n = 6) had coordination of care with the nephrologist, and 35% (n = 7) had engaged in end-of-life planning. This project aimed to increase patient-centered care for ESRD patients to 80% in 90 days. The project utilized the Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement model in four 2-week rapid cycles with 2 focus improvement areas. The 2 core interventions were patient screening for preferences and values and providing the right care for palliative management utilizing a checklist. At the end of the project, patient-centered right care for ESRD increased from a baseline of 24% to 94%. Patient engagement scores increased from a baseline of 3.2 to 4.9 on a 5-point Likert scale, with 5 being the highest supporting a shared decision model of care in improving patient-centered right care.

Communicating treatment options to older patients with advanced kidney disease: a conversation analysis study

BACKGROUND

Choosing to have dialysis or conservative kidney management is often challenging for older people with advanced kidney disease. While we know that clinical communication has a major impact on patients' treatment decision-making, little is known about how this occurs in practice. The OSCAR study (Optimising Staff-Patient Communication in Advanced Renal disease) aimed to identify how clinicians present kidney failure treatment options in consultations with older patients and the implications of this for patient engagement.

METHODS

An observational, multi-method study design was adopted. Outpatient consultations at four UK renal units were video-recorded, and patients completed a post-consultation measure of shared decision-making (SDM-Q-9). Units were sampled according to variable rates of conservative management. Eligible patients were ≥ 65 years old with an eGFR of ≤ 20 mls/min/1.73m2 within the last 6 months. Video-recordings were screened to identify instances where clinicians presented both dialysis and conservative management. These instances were transcribed in fine-grained detail and recurrent practices identified using conversation-analytic methods, an empirical, observational approach to studying language and social interaction.

RESULTS

110 outpatient consultations were recorded (105 video, 5 audio only), involving 38 clinicians (doctors and nurses) and 94 patients: mean age 77 (65-97); 61 males/33 females; mean eGFR 15 (range 4-23). There were 21 instances where clinicians presented both dialysis and conservative management. Two main practices were identified: (1) Conservative management and dialysis both presented as the main treatment options; (2) Conservative management presented as a subordinate option to dialysis. The first practice was less commonly used (6 vs. 15 cases), but associated with more opportunities in the conversation for patients to ask questions and share their perspective, through which they tended to evaluate conservative management as an option that was potentially personally relevant. This practice was also associated with significantly higher post-consultation ratings of shared decision-making among patients (SDM-Q-9 median total score 24 vs. 37, p = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Presenting conservative management and dialysis as on an equal footing enables patient to take a more active role in decision-making. Findings should inform clinical communication skills training and education.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

No trial number as this is not a clinical trial.

Person-Centered Care Planning for People Living With or at Risk for Multiple Chronic Conditions

Importance

The US has a growing population of people living with multiple chronic conditions (MCC), yet the health system is ill designed to meet their needs. Person-centered care planning (PCCP) is an approach to provide comprehensive care that is responsive to the individual to improve health outcomes and increase value.

Objective

To examine strategies used to provide PCCP for people living with or at risk for MCC, as well as facilitators and barriers to implementation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This qualitative study uses thematic analysis of responses from a Request for Information (RFI) published in the Federal Register soliciting input on PCCP, posted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) in 2022. The RFI was available for public comment from September 16, 2022, to November 15, 2022. Responses were analyzed between January 2023 and February 2024. Respondents were individuals and organizations who identify as, provide care for, or seek to improve care for individuals living with or at risk for MCC. Some responses represent multiple individuals.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Qualitative themes and subthemes of the RFI responses, developed using thematic analysis through inductive and deductive coding of the open-text responses.

Results

There were a total of 58 respondents, including clinicians, researchers, patients, caregivers, and representatives from health care payer, practitioner, health system, advocacy, professional, and supporting nonprofit and industry organizations. Researchers identified 9 themes: (1) suboptimal quality of care; (2) person-centered, goal-concordant care; (3) multidisciplinary team-based care and care coordination; (4) prevention across the life course; (5) digital health solutions; (6) workflow; (7) education and self-management support; (8) payment; and (9) achieving community, health system, and payer goals.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this qualitative study of PCCP for people living with or at risk for MCC, challenges to widescale adoption of PCCP were identified along with strategies to address these challenges, including the alignment of payment, policy support, culture change, adoption of meaningful measures, and the need for evidence on strategies to scale and spread PCCP. Insights gained from this analysis can inform research priorities and implementation efforts to advance PCCP as an integral component of routine care.

Shared decision-making in end-of-life care for end-stage renal disease patients: nephrologists' views and attitudes

BACKGROUND

The term end-stage renal disease (ESRD) refers to the final stage of chronic kidney disease. Not all ESRD patients are suitable for dialysis treatment, which despite its advantages, is not without risks. Shared nephrologist-patient decision-making could be beneficial at this stage, yet little is known about such practices in Israel. This study aimed at examining the practice of shared decision-making (SDM) between nephrologists and ESRD patients in Israel, while exploring related conflicts, ethical dilemmas, and considerations.

METHODS

The descriptive-quantitative approach applied in this study included a validated questionnaire for nephrologists, based on Emanual and Emanual (1992). The survey, which was distributed via social-media platforms and snowball sampling, was completed by 169 nephrologists. Data analysis included t-tests for independent samples, f-tests for analysis of variance, and t-tests and f-tests for independence. Descriptive analysis examined attitudes towards SDM in end-of-life care for ESRD patients.

RESULTS

The findings show that the research sample did not include nephrologists who typically act according to the paternalistic decision-making style. Rather, 53% of the respondents were found to act in line with the informative decision-making style, while 47% act according to the interpretive decision-making style. Almost 70% of all respondents reported their discussing quality-of-life with patients; 63.4% provide prognostic assessments; 61.5% inquire about the patient's desired place of death; 58.6% ask about advance directives or power-of-attorney; and 57.4% inquire about cultural and religious beliefs in end-of-life treatment. Additionally, informative nephrologists tend to promote the patients' autonomy over their health (P < 0.001); they are also in favor of conservative treatment, compared to paternalistic and interpretive nephrologists, and use less invasive methods than other nephrologists (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Nephrologists in Israel only partially pursue an SDM model, which has the potential to improve quality-of-care for ESRD patients and their families. SDM programs should be developed and implemented for increasing such practices among nephrologists, thereby expanding the possibilities for providing conservative care at end-of-life.

Mind the gap in kidney care: Translating what we know into what we do

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the gap in kidney care: translating what we know into what we do

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages, it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Views, attitudes, and reported practices of nephrology nurses regarding shared decision-making in end-of-life care

BACKGROUND

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is the final stage of chronic kidney disease. Yet dialysis is not suitable for all ESRD patients. Moreover, while shared decision-making (SDM) is the preferred model for making medical decisions, little is known about SDM between nephrology nurses and ESRD patients in Israel.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

Assessing the views, attitudes, practices, and ethical dilemmas of nephrology nurses in Israel regarding SDM with ESRD patients.

METHODS

Using the descriptive quantitative approach, questionnaires were completed by 444 nephrology nurses in Israel. In addition to conducting descriptive statistics, t-tests for independent samples, f-tests for analysis of variance, and both tests for independence were also performed.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The research aims, expected advantages and risks have been explained to respondents before completing the questionnaire to secure informed consent. Anonymity and confidentiality were ensured throughout the study. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee at the University of Haifa (Approval # 411/21).

RESULTS

About one-third (30%-36.5%) of nurses reported discussing quality of life issues with ESRD patients, asking about their advance directives/power of attorney, exploring cultural/religious beliefs in end-of-life care, and ask about their preferred place of death. Nurses who convey high levels of patient-centered care (68.9%, p<0.0001), have high end-of-life training (76.2%, p<0.0001), and report cooperating with interdisciplinary teams (63.8%, p = 0.0415), also reported higher SDM practices than others. Nurses who refer less patients to palliative care (70%, p<0.0001) reported higher involvement in SDM compared to other nurses.

CONCLUSIONS

Nephrology nurses in Israel do not tend to implement the SDM model, despite its potential for improving quality of life for ESRD patients and their families and increasing conservative care options. Policy makers and educators in Israel should develop and implement training programs and support in the workplace, to enhance SDM between nephrology nurses and ESRD patients.

Mind the gap in kidney care: translating what we know into what we do

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years for new treatments to move from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. Now is the time to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions are diagnosed worldwide, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because it is often silent in the early stages. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from the patient to the clinician to the health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the Gap in Kidney Care: Translating What We Know into What We Do

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the gap in kidney care: Translating what we know into what we do

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the Gap in Kidney Care: Translating What We Know Into What We do

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages, it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary-care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the gap in kidney care: Translating what we know into what we do

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition because in the early stages, it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Development and Validation of the Rating of CKD Knowledge Among Older Adults (Know-CKD) With Kidney Failure

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Few older adults with kidney failure engage in shared decision making (SDM) for kidney replacement therapy. The lack of instruments to assess SDM-relevant knowledge domains may contribute to this. We assessed the reliability and validity of a new instrument, the Rating of CKD Knowledge Older Adults (Know-CKD).

STUDY DESIGN

Multistage process, including a stakeholder-engaged development phase, pilot testing, and validation of a knowledge instrument using a cross-sectional survey of older adults with CKD.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

363 patients aged 70+years with nondialysis advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]<30mL/min/1.73m2) in Boston, Chicago, Portland, ME, and San Diego from June 2018 and January 2020.

EXPOSURE

Educational level, higher literacy (Single Item Literacy Screener [SILS]) and numeracy (Subjective Numeracy Scale [SNS]), having participated in clinic-sponsored dialysis education, and self-reported "feeling informed" about options for treatment.

OUTCOME

Validity and reliability of the Know-CKD instrument.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Reliability was assessed with the Kuder-Richardson-20 coefficient. Construct validity was demonstrated by testing a priori hypotheses using t test, analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, and linear regression analyses.

RESULTS

The mean (± SD) participant age was 77.6±5.9 years, and mean eGFR was 22.7±7.2mL/min/1.73m2; 281 participants (78%) self-reported as White. The 12-item Know-CKD assessment had good reliability (Kuder-Richardson-20 reliability coefficient=0.75), and a mean score of 58.2% ± 22.3 SD. The subscales did not attain acceptable reliability. The proportion answering correctly on each item ranged from 20.1% to 91.7%. In examining construct validity, the hypothesized associations held; Know-CKD significantly associated with higher education (β=6.98 [95% CI, 1.34-12.61], P=0.02), health literacy (β = -12.67 [95% CI, -19.49 to-5.86], P≤0.001), numeracy per 10% higher (β=1.85 [95% CI, 1.02-2.69], P≤0.001), and attendance at dialysis class (β=18.28 [95% CI, 13.30-23.27], P≤0.001). These associations were also observed for the subscales except for prognosis (not associated with literacy or numeracy).

LIMITATIONS

Know-CKD is only available in English and has been used only in research settings.

CONCLUSIONS

For older adults facing dialysis initiation decisions, Know-CKD is a valid, reliable, and easy to administer measure of knowledge. Further research should examine the relationship of kidney disease knowledge and SDM, patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes.

PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY

The Rating of CKD Knowledge Among Older Adults (Know-CKD) study measures knowledge of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is designed for older adults. Most existing knowledge measures for CKD focus on people of all ages and all CKD stages. This measure is useful because it will allow researchers to assess how well patient education efforts are working. Patient education is a way to help patients make decisions about their care. We describe how the measure was developed by a team of doctors, researchers, and patients, and how the measure performed among persons with advanced CKD aged 70 years and older. Know-CKD can inform efforts to improve shared decision-making research and practice for older patients with kidney disease.

Shared decision making in elderly patients with kidney failure

'Elderly' is most commonly defined as an individual aged 65 years or older. However, this definition fails to account for the differences in genetics, lifestyle and overall health that contribute to significant heterogeneity among the elderly beyond chronological age. As the world population continues to age, the prevalence of chronic diseases, including chronic kidney disease (CKD), is increasing and CKD frequently progresses to kidney failure. Moreover, frailty represents a multidimensional clinical entity highly prevalent in this population, which needs to be adequately assessed to inform and support medical decisions. Selecting the optimal treatment pathway for the elderly and frail kidney failure population, be it haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or conservative kidney management, is complex because of the presence of comorbidities associated with low survival rates and impaired quality of life. Management of these patients should involve a multidisciplinary approach including doctors from various specialties, nurses, psychologists, dieticians and physiotherapists. Studies are mostly retrospective and observational, lacking adjustment for confounders or addressing selection and indication biases, making it difficult to use these data to guide treatment decisions. Throughout this review we discuss the difficulty of making a one-size-fits-all recommendation for the clinical needs of older patients with kidney failure. We advocate that a research agenda for optimization of the critical issues we present in this review be implemented. We recommend prospective studies that address these issues, and systematic reviews incorporating the complementary evidence of both observational and interventional studies. Furthermore, we strongly support a shared decision-making process matching evidence with patient preferences to ensure that individualized choices are made regarding dialysis vs conservative kidney management, dialysis modality and optimal vascular access.

Exploring health and disease concepts in healthcare practice: an empirical philosophy of medicine study

In line with recent proposals for experimental philosophy and philosophy of science in practice, we propose that the philosophy of medicine could benefit from incorporating empirical research, just as bioethics has. In this paper, we therefore take first steps towards the development of an empirical philosophy of medicine, that includes investigating practical and moral dimensions. This qualitative study gives insight into the views and experiences of a group of various medical professionals and patient representatives regarding the conceptualization of health and disease concepts in practice and the possible problems that surround them. This includes clinical, epistemological, and ethical issues. We have conducted qualitative interviews with a broad range of participants (n = 17), working in various health-related disciplines, fields and organizations. From the interviews, we highlight several different practical functions of definitions of health and disease. Furthermore, we discuss 5 types of problematic situations that emerged from the interviews and analyze the underlying conceptual issues. By providing theoretical frameworks and conceptual tools, and by suggesting conceptual changes or adaptations, philosophers might be able to help solve some of these problems. This empirical-philosophical study contributes to a more pragmatic way of understanding the relevance of conceptualizing health and disease by connecting the participants' views and experiences to the theoretical debate. Going back and forth between theory and practice will likely result in a more complex but hopefully also better and more fruitful understanding of health and disease concepts.

Getting to Know Your Patient: Content Analysis of Patients' Answers to a Questionnaire for Promoting Person-Centered Care

BACKGROUND

Person-centered care (PCC) encourages patients to actively participate in health care, thus facilitating care that fits the life of the patient. Therefore, health care professionals (HCPs) need to know the patient. As part of a broad policy for improving PCC, a digital questionnaire ("We would like to know you") consisting of 5 questions has previously been developed to help HCPs to get to know the patient with the help of patient and staff involvement.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to provide insight into the content and aims of the questionnaire to understand its potential and usability.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative, retrospective content analysis of patients' answers using NVivo Pro (QSR International). The questionnaire was used in the outpatient neuro-oncology department of a Dutch academic hospital.

RESULTS

Of 374 invited patients, 78 (20.9%) completed the questionnaire. We selected a sample of 42 (54%) of the 78 patients. Patients used a median of 16 (IQR 7-27) words per question, and most answers were easily interpretable. When asked about important activities, social activities, sports, or maintaining a normal life were most frequently mentioned. Patients wrote about fear of the disease, its possible influence on life, or fear of the future in general. Patients wanted HCPs to know about their care and communication preferences or shared personal information. They formulated expectations about effective treatment, communication, and the care process.

CONCLUSIONS

The questionnaire seems usable because patients provide interpretable answers that take little time to read, which HCPs can use to personalize care. Our study shows the potential of the questionnaire to help deliver PCC.

Mind the gap in kidney care: translating what we know into what we do

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

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.

Renal Replacement Therapy For Elderly Patients with ESKD Through Shared Decision-Making

The incidence and prevalence of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in Korea are increasing, and ESKD constitutes a very important medical and social issue. Elderly dialysis patients have the highest risk of early mortality within 3 months after initiating dialysis, and geriatric syndromes such as aging, frailty, functional impairment, and cognitive impairment are crucial for the prognosis of elderly patients. Shared decision-making (SDM) is an approach through which clinicians and patients can achieve informed preferences, thereby yielding better clinical outcomes and quality of life. Through SDM-based, close consultation among patients, families, and healthcare providers, an ESKD Life-Plan for elderly patients should be established. A multidisciplinary approach led by nephrologists can help them to provide proper vascular access for dialysis at the right time, with the right evidence, and to the right patient. Strategies that can improve peritoneal dialysis in elderly patients include assisted peritoneal dialysis, homecare support programs, and automated peritoneal dialysis. In order to enhance the role of kidney transplantation in elderly patients with ESKD, it is necessary to accurately identify patients' clinical conditions before transplantation and to perform active rehabilitation activities and postoperative management to promote recovery after transplantation. With the aging population and the increase in ESKD in the elderly, clinicians must identify factors affecting the mortality and quality of life of elderly dialysis patients.

Optimizing Multidisciplinary Care of Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes is the leading cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD), a condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality. As these patients have a high risk of developing cardiovascular disease and end-stage kidney disease, there is a need for early detection and early initiation of appropriate therapeutic interventions that slow disease progression and prevent adverse outcomes. Due to the complex nature of diabetes and CKD management, a holistic, patient-centered, collaborative care approach delivered by a coordinated multidisciplinary team (ideally including a clinical pharmacist as part of a comprehensive medication management program) is needed. In this review, we discuss the barriers to effective care, the current multidisciplinary approach used for CKD prevention and treatment, and the potential ways that the multidisciplinary management of CKD associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus can be refined to improve patient outcomes.

Advance Care Planning, Shared Decision Making, and Serious Illness Conversations in Onconephrology

Advance care planning, shared decision making, and serious illness conversations are communication processes designed to promote patient-centered care. In onconephrology, patients face a series of complex medical decisions regarding their care at the intersection of oncology and nephrology. Clinicians who aim to ensure that patient preferences and values are integrated into treatment planning must work within a similarly complex care team comprising multiple disciplines. In this review, we describe key decision points in a patient's care trajectory, as well as guidance on how and when to engage in advance care planning, shared decision making, and serious illness discussions. Further research on these processes in the complex context of onconephrology is needed.

The development and feasibility study of Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning conversations at the outpatient clinic: the MUTUAL intervention

Background

Patients still receive non-beneficial treatments when nearing the end of life. Advance care planning (ACP) interventions have shown to positively influence compliance with end of life wishes. Hospital physicians seem to miss opportunities to engage in ACP, whereas patients visiting the outpatient clinic usually have one or more chronic conditions and are at risk for medical emergencies. So far, implemented ACP interventions have had limited impact. Structural implementation of ACP may be beneficial. We hypothesize that having ACP conversations more towards the end of life and involving the treating physician in the ACP conversation may help patient wishes and goals to become more concrete and more often documented, thus facilitating goal-concordant care.

Aim

To facilitate timely shared decision making and increase patient autonomy we aim to develop an ACP intervention at the outpatient clinic for frail patients and determine the feasibility of the intervention.

Methods

The United Kingdom’s Medical Research Council framework was used to structure the development of the ACP intervention. Key elements of the ACP intervention were determined by reviewing existing literature and an iterative process with stakeholders. The feasibility of the developed intervention was evaluated by a feasibility study of 20 ACP conversations at the geriatrics and pulmonology department of a non-academic hospital. Feasibility was assessed by analysing evaluation forms by patients, nurses and physicians and by evaluating with stakeholders. A general inductive approach was used for analysing comments. The developed intervention was described using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR).

Results

We developed a multidisciplinary timely undertaken ACP intervention at the outpatient clinic. Key components of the developed intervention consist of 1) timely patient selection 2) preparation of patient and healthcare professional 3) a scripted ACP conversation in a multidisciplinary setting and 4) documentation. 94.7% of the patients, 60.0% of the nurses and 68.8% of the physicians agreed that the benefits of the ACP conversation outweighed the potential burdens.

Conclusion

This study showed that the developed ACP intervention is feasible and considered valuable by patients and healthcare professionals.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-022-01005-3.