An Evidence-Based Theory About PRO Use in Kidney Care: A Realist Synthesis

An introduction to realist evaluation and synthesis for kidney research

Realist research describes a methodological approach that aims to explore how and why interventions work, for whom, and under what circumstances. Rather than quantifying how well an intervention works under specific conditions, realist theory explores the function of interventions in detail and specifically considers how the contexts in which interventional components are delivered influence the mechanisms that lead to outcomes. Realist methods can be applied to primary data (realist evaluation) or secondary data (realist synthesis). Although realist techniques are increasingly being used in the evaluation of complex interventions, there are relatively few published studies in the field of kidney care. In this review, we outline the theory and principles behind realist methods through discussion of a published realist synthesis describing complex interventions promoting delivery of optimal chronic kidney disease care. We discuss other kidney studies that have used realist methodology and situations where realist techniques could be applied to advance our understanding of how to best deliver care to patients with kidney disease.

Global use of electronic patient-reported outcome systems in nephrology: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

The use of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems to support the management of patients with chronic kidney disease is increasing. This mixed-methods study aimed to comprehensively identify existing and developing ePRO systems, used in nephrology settings globally, ascertaining key characteristics and factors for successful implementation.

STUDY DESIGN

ePRO systems and developers were identified through a scoping review of the literature and contact with field experts. Developers were invited to participate in a structured survey, to summarise key system characteristics including: (1) system objectives, (2) population, (3) PRO measures used, (4) level of automation, (5) reporting, (6) integration into workflow and (7) links to electronic health records/national registries. Subsequent semistructured interviews were conducted to explore responses.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Eligible systems included those being developed or used in nephrology settings to assess ePROs and summarise results to care providers. System developers included those with a key responsibility for aspects of the design, development or implementation of an eligible system.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Structured survey data were summarised using descriptive statistics. Interview transcripts were analysed using Codebook Thematic Analysis using domains from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

Fifteen unique ePRO systems were identified across seven countries; 10 system developers completed the structured survey and 7 participated in semistructured interviews. Despite system heterogeneity, reported features required for effective implementation included early and sustained patient involvement, clinician champions and expanding existing electronic platforms to integrate ePROs. Systems demonstrated several common features, with the majority being implemented within research settings, thereby affecting system implementation readiness for real-world application.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been considerable research investment in ePRO systems. The findings of this study outline key system features and factors to support the successful implementation of ePROs in routine kidney care.Cite Now.

Electronic patient-reported outcomes in clinical kidney practice (ePRO Kidney): a process evaluation of educational support for clinicians

Background

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly mandated in kidney care to incorporate patients' perspectives.

Objectives

We assessed whether educational support for clinicians using electronic (e)PROs could enhance person-centered care.

Design

A process evaluation, using a mixed methods longitudinal comparative concurrent design was undertaken of educational support to clinicians on routine use of ePROs. In two urban home dialysis clinics in Alberta, Canada, patients completed ePROs. At the implementation site, clinicians were provided with ePROs and clinician-oriented education via voluntary workshops. At the non-implementation site, neither were provided. Person-centered care was measured using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care-20 (PACIC-20).

Methods

Longitudinal structural equation models (SEMs) compared change in overall PACIC scores. The interpretive description approach, using thematic analysis of qualitative data, further evaluated processes of implementation.

Results

Data were collected from questionnaires completed by 543 patients, 4 workshops, 15 focus groups, and 37 interviews. There was no overall difference in person-centered care throughout the study, including after delivery of workshops. The longitudinal SEMs revealed substantial individual-level variability in overall PACIC trajectories. However, there was no improvement at the implementation site and no difference between the sites during both the pre- and post-workshop periods. Similar results were obtained for each PACIC domain. Qualitative analysis provided insights into why there was no substantial difference between sites: (1) clinicians wanted to see kidney symptoms, not quality of life, (2) workshops were tailored to clinicians' educational needs, not patients' needs, and (3) variable use of ePRO data by clinicians.

Conclusion

Training clinicians on use of ePROs is complex and likely only part of what is required to enhance person-centered care.

Registration

NCT03149328. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03149328.

Discussing results of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between patients and healthcare professionals in routine dialysis care: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide insight into patients' experienced health and needs, and can improve patient-professional communication. However, little is known about how to discuss PROM results. This study aimed to provide in-depth knowledge of patients' and healthcare professionals' experiences with and perspectives on discussing PROM results as part of routine dialysis care.

DESIGN

A qualitative study was performed using an interpretive description approach. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with 22 patients and healthcare professionals. Interviews focused on general and specific situations (eg, addressing sensitive topics or when no medical treatment is available). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively using thematic analysis.

SETTING

Participants were purposively sampled from eight dialysis centres across the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Interviews were conducted with 10 patients receiving dialysis treatment and 12 healthcare professionals (nephrologists and nurses).

RESULTS

Patients and healthcare professionals provided practical guidance for optimal discussion about PROM results. First, patients and healthcare professionals emphasised that PROM results should always be discussed and indicated how to create a suitable setting, adequately prepare, deal with time constraints and use PROMs as a tool for personalised holistic consultations. Second, patients should actively participate and healthcare professionals should take a guiding role. A trusting patient-professional relationship was considered a prerequisite and patient-professional interaction was described as a collaboration in which both contribute their knowledge, experiences and ideas. Third, follow-up after discussing PROM results was considered important, including evaluations and actions (eg, symptom management) structurally embedded into the multidisciplinary treatment process. These general themes also applied to the specific situations, for example: results should also be discussed when no medical treatment is available. Though, healthcare professionals were expected to take more initiative and a leading role when discussing sensitive topics.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insight into how to organise and conduct conversations about PROM results and lays the foundation for training healthcare professionals to optimally discuss PROM results in routine nephrology care. Further research is needed to provide guidance on follow-up actions in response to specific PROM results.

How the Routine Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Hemodialysis Care Influences Patient-Clinician Communication: A Mixed-Methods Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcome measures invite patients to self-report aspects of their quality of life and have been reported to enhance communication with clinicians. We aimed to examine how routine use of patient-reported outcome measures in in-center hemodialysis units influenced patient-clinician communication.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

A concurrent, longitudinal, mixed-methods approach was used. We used data from a cluster randomized controlled trial of 17 hemodialysis units in northern Alberta that introduced a patient-reported outcome measures intervention. Patient-clinician communication was assessed using a modified Communication Assessment Tool. Using interpretive description, we explored patients' and nurses' perceptions of communication pertaining to routine patient-reported outcome measure use. Through purposeful sampling, we interviewed ten patients and eight nurses and conducted six observations in the dialysis units, which were documented in field notes. We reviewed 779 patient responses to open-ended survey questions from randomized controlled trial data. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, patient-reported outcome measure use did not substantively improve patient-clinician communication. There was a small positive change in mean total Communication Assessment Tool scores (range, 1-5) from baseline to 12 months in patient-reported outcome measure use units (0.25) but little difference from control group units that did not use patient-reported outcome measures (0.21). The qualitative findings provide in-depth insights into why patient-reported outcome measure use did not improve patient-clinician communication. The purpose of patient-reported outcome measure use was not always understood by patients and clinicians; patient-reported outcome measures were not implemented as originally intended in the trial, despite clinician training; there were challenges using patient-reported outcome measures as a means to communicate; and patient-reported outcome measure use was perceived to have limited value.

CONCLUSIONS

While patient-reported outcome measures use did not improve patient-clinician communication, qualitative data suggest implementation challenges, including limited clarity of purpose and perceived limited value, that may have limited the effectiveness of the intervention.

How Are Albertans "Adjusting to and Coping With" Dialysis? A Cross-Sectional Survey

Background:

Depression and anxiety are commonly reported (40% and 11%-52%) among adults receiving dialysis, compared with ~10% among all Canadians. Mental health in dialysis care is underrecognized and undertreated.

Objective:

(1) To describe preferences for mental health support reported by Albertans receiving dialysis; (2) to compare depression, anxiety, and quality-of-life (QOL) domains for people who would or would not engage in support for mental health; and (3) to explore sociodemographic, mental health, and QOL domains that explain whether people would or would not engage in support for mental health.

Design:

A cross-sectional survey.

Setting:

Alberta, Canada.

Patients:

Adults receiving all modalities of dialysis (N = 2972).

Measurements:

An online survey with questions about preferences for mental health support and patient-reported outcome measures (Patient Health Questionnaire–9 [PHQ-9], Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 [GAD-7], and Kidney Disease QOL Instrument–36 [KDQOL-36]).

Methods:

To address objectives 1 and 2, we conducted chi-square tests (for discrete variables) and t tests (for continuous variables) to compare the distributions of the above measures for two groups: Albertans receiving dialysis who would engage or would not engage in support for mental health. We subsequently conducted a series of binary logistic regressions guided by the purposeful variable selection approach to identify a subset of the most relevant explanatory variables for determining whether or not people are more likely to engage in support for mental health (objective 3). To further explain differences between the two groups, we analyzed open-text comments following a summative content analysis approach.

Results:

Among 384 respondents, 72 did not provide a dialysis modality or answer the PHQ-9. The final data set included responses from 312 participants. Of these, 59.6% would consider engaging in support, including discussing medication with a family doctor (72.1%) or nephrologist (62.9%), peer support groups (64.9%), and talk therapy (60%). Phone was slightly favored (73%) over in person at dialysis (67.6%), outpatient (67.2%), or video (59.4%). Moderate to severe depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 score ≥10) was reported by 33.4%, and most respondents (63.9%) reported minimal anxiety symptoms; 36.1% reported mild to severe anxiety symptoms (GAD-7 score ≥5). The mean (SD) PHQ-9 score was 8.9 (6.4) for those who would engage in support, and lower at 5.8 (4.8) for those who would not. The mean (SD) GAD-7 score was 5.2 (5.6) for those who would engage in support and 2.8 (4.1) for those who would not. In the final logistic regression model, people who were unable to work had 2 times the odds of engaging in support than people who are able to work. People were also more likely to engage in support if they had been on dialysis for fewer years and had lower (worse) mental health scores (odds ratios = 1.06 and 1.38, respectively). The final model explained 15.5% (Nagelkerke R²) of the variance and with 66.6% correct classification. We analyzed 146 comments in response to the question, “Is there anything else you like to tell us.” The top 2 categories for both groups were QOL and impact of dialysis environment. The third category differed: those who would engage wrote about support, whereas those who would not engage wrote about “dialysis is the least of my worries.”

Limitations:

A low response rate of 12.9% limits representativeness; people who chose not to participate may have different experiences of mental health.

Conclusions:

Incorporating patients’ preferences and willingness to engage in support for mental health will inform future visioning for person-centered mental health care in dialysis.

The Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Daily Clinical Practice of a Pediatric Nephrology Department

(1) Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is lower in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) compared to the general population. In 2011, the KLIK PROM portal was implemented in the Emma Children’s Hospital to monitor and discuss HRQoL in daily care. This study describes and assesses the implementation and use of the KLIK PROM portal in the pediatric nephrology department. (2) Methods: CKD patients (self-report, if 8–18 years of age) and their parents (proxy-report, if 1–8 years) were invited to complete HRQoL patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): TNO-AZL Preschool children Quality Of Life (TAPQOL) or Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory for Children (PedsQL). The PROMs were completed before and discussed during outpatient consultations. The adaptation rate—the proportion of patients/parents who were invited and completed at least one PROM—was calculated. Reported HRQoL scores of CKD patients were compared to the general population. (3) Results: In total, 142 patients (proxy- and self-report) were invited, 112 patients completed at least one PROM (adaptation rate 79%). Patients (n = 84 with informed consent for scientific use) with CKD reported lower HRQoL and HRQoL was more often impaired compared to the general Dutch population. (4) Conclusions: The implementation of KLIK was successful and its use is feasible for daily care. Using KLIK, HRQoL problems can be easily identified and monitored.

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Nephrology: Focus on Hemodialysis

The success of hemodialysis (HD) treatments has been evaluated using objective measures of analytical parameters, or machine-measured parameters, despite having available validated instruments that assess patient perspective. There is an emerging interest regarding the use and relevance of patient-related outcomes (PROs). Electronic PROs (ePROs) involve the use of electronic technology, provide rapid access to this information, and are becoming more widely used in clinical trials and studies to evaluate efficacy and safety. Despite the scarce literature, this review suggests that ePROs are useful in providing a more customized and multidimensional approach to patient management and in making better clinical decisions in relevant aspects such as vascular access, duration and frequency of dialysis sessions, treatment of anemia, mental health, fatigue, and quality of life. The purpose of this review is to raise interest in the systematic use of ePROs in HD and to promote the development of studies in this field, which can respond to the gaps in knowledge and contribute to the implementation of the use of ePROs through new technologies, helping to improve the quality of health care.