Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Management of Advanced CKD: A Qualitative Study

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) can substantially affect patients' health-related quality of life. Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) may capture symptoms and health-related quality of life and assist in the management of CKD. This study explored patient and clinician views on the use of a renal ePROM system.

STUDY DESIGN

Qualitative study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

12 patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD (non-dialysis dependent); 22 clinicians (6 CKD community nurses, 1 clinical psychologist, 10 nephrologists, 3 specialist registrars, and 2 renal surgeons) in the United Kingdom.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussion during which patients received paper versions of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 and the Integrated Patient Outcome Scale-Renal to exemplify the type of content that could be included in an ePROM. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts.

RESULTS

4 themes were identified: (1) general opinions of PROMs, (2) potential benefits and applications of an ePROM system, (3) practical considerations for the implementation of ePROMs, and (4) concerns, barriers, and facilitators. Patients were willing to complete ePROMs on a regular basis as part of their care despite clinician concerns about patient burden. Patients assessed the questionnaires favorably. Clinicians suggested that the extent of adoption of renal ePROM systems in routine clinical settings should be based on evidence of significant impact on patient outcomes. Clinicians were concerned that an ePROM system may raise patient expectations to unrealistic levels and expose clinicians to the risk for litigation. Patients and clinicians identified potential benefits and highlighted issues and concerns that need to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of the renal ePROM system.

LIMITATIONS

Transferability of the findings may be limited because only English-speaking participants were recruited to the study.

CONCLUSIONS

A renal ePROM system may play a supportive role in the routine clinical management of patients with advanced CKD if the concerns of clinicians and patients can be sufficiently addressed.

Person-Centered Care for Older Adults With Kidney Disease: Core Curriculum 2019

This Core Curriculum article models a person-centered approach to care for older adults with kidney disease. We provide background information on the principles of person-centered care and outline ways in which this approach contrasts with the more disease-based approaches that dominate current medical education and practice. Using hypothetical cases, we discuss 3 clinical scenarios that arise commonly when caring for older adults with kidney disease: (1) a moderate reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate, (2) new-onset nephrotic-range proteinuria, and (3) the prospect of starting dialysis. For each scenario, we summarize relevant available evidence and model what a person-centered approach might look like. In discussing each scenario, we highlight: (1) the considerable heterogeneity in clinical presentation, circumstances, priorities, and values that exist among older adults with kidney disease; (2) the importance of interpreting available evidence and clinical practice guidelines in the context of what is relevant to each patient; (3) methods for grounding discussions about care and treatment options in the realities of each patient's situation and what is most meaningful to them; and (4) the importance of setting aside one's own biases and practice style to ensure that patients' own values and goals guide their care.

System-Level Barriers and Facilitators for Foregoing or Withdrawing Dialysis: A Qualitative Study of Nephrologists in the United States and England

BACKGROUND

Despite a growing body of literature suggesting that dialysis does not confer morbidity or mortality benefits for all patients with chronic kidney failure, the initiation and continuation of dialysis therapy in patients with poor prognosis is commonplace. Our goal was to elicit nephrologists' perspectives on factors that affect decision making regarding end-stage renal disease.

STUDY DESIGN

Semistructured, individual, qualitative interviews.

METHODOLOGY

Participants were purposively sampled based on age, race, sex, geographic location, and practice type. Each was asked about his or her perspectives and experiences related to foregoing and withdrawing dialysis therapy.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using narrative and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We conducted 59 semistructured interviews with nephrologists from the United States (n=41) and England (n=18). Most participants were 45 years or younger, men, and white. Average time since completing nephrology training was 14.2±11.6 (SD) years. Identified system-level facilitators and barriers for foregoing and withdrawing dialysis therapy stemmed from national and institutional policies and structural factors, how providers practice medicine (the culture of medicine), and beliefs and behaviors of the public (societal culture). In both countries, the predominant barriers described included lack of training in end-of-life conversations and expectations for aggressive care among non-nephrologists and the general public. Primary differences included financial incentives to dialyze in the United States and widespread outpatient conservative management programs in England.

LIMITATIONS

Participants' views may not fully capture those of all American or English nephrologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Nephrologists in the United States and England identified several system-level factors that both facilitated and interfered with decision making around foregoing and withdrawing dialysis therapy. Efforts to expand facilitators while reducing barriers could lead to care practices more in keeping with patient prognosis.

Improving care coordination between nephrology and primary care: a quality improvement initiative using the renal physicians association toolkit

BACKGROUND

Individuals at risk for chronic kidney disease (CKD), including those with diabetes mellitus and hypertension, are prevalent in primary care physician (PCP) practices. A major systemic barrier to mitigating risk of progression to kidney failure and to optimal care is failure of communication and coordination among PCPs and nephrologists.

STUDY DESIGN

Quality improvement. Longitudinal practice-level study of tool-based intervention in nephrology practices and their referring PCP practices.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

9 PCP and 5 nephrology practices in Philadelphia and Chicago.

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Tools from Renal Physicians Association toolkit were modified and provided for use by PCPs and nephrologists to improve identification of CKD, communication, and comanagement.

OUTCOMES

CKD identification, referral to nephrologists, communication among PCPs and nephrologists, comanagement processes.

MEASUREMENTS

Pre- and postimplementation interviews, questionnaires, site visits, and monthly teleconferences were used to ascertain practice patterns, perceptions, and tool use. Interview transcripts were reviewed for themes using qualitative analysis based on grounded theory. Chart audits assessed CKD identification and referral (PCPs).

RESULTS

PCPs improved processes for CKD identification, referral to nephrologists, communication, and execution of comanagement plans. Documentation of glomerular filtration rate was increased significantly (P=0.01). Nephrologists improved referral and comanagement processes. PCP postintervention interviews documented increased awareness of risk factors, the need to track high-risk patients, and the importance of early referral. Final nephrologist interviews revealed heightened attention to communication and comanagement with PCPs and increased levels of satisfaction among all parties.

LIMITATIONS

Nephrology practices volunteered to participate and recruit their referring PCP practices. Audit tools were developed for quality improvement assessment, but were not designed to provide statistically significant estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of specifically tailored tools led to enhanced awareness and identification of CKD among PCPs, increased communication between practices, and improvement in comanagement and cooperation between PCPs and nephrologists.