Search

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.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.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.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.

The Goals of Care Designation (GCD) is a medical order used to communicate the focus of a patient's care in Alberta, Canada. In this study, we aimed to determine the association between GCD type (resuscitative, medical or comfort) and resource use during hospitalization.This was a prospective cohort study of newly hospitalized inpatients in Alberta conducted from January to September 2017. Participants were aged 55 years or older with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, cirrhosis, cancer or renal failure; aged 55-79 years and their provider answered "no" to the "surprise question" (i.e., provider would not be surprised if the patient died in the next 6 months); or aged 80 years or older with any acute condition. The exposure of interest was GCD. The primary outcome was health care resource use during admission, measured by length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit hours, Resource Intensity Weights (RIWs), flagged interventions and palliative care referral. The secondary outcome was 30-day readmission. Adjusted regression analyses were performed (adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, Clinical Frailty Scale score, comorbidities and city).We included 475 study participants. The median age was 83 (interquartile range 77-87) years, and 93.7% had a GCD at enrolment. Relative to patients with the resuscitative GCD type, patients with the medical GCD type had a longer LOS (1.42 times, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.83) and a higher RIW (adjusted ratio 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Patients with the comfort and medical GCD types had more palliative care referral (comfort GCD adjusted relative risk (RR) 9.32, 95% CI 4.32-20.08; medical GCD adjusted RR 3.58, 95% CI 1.75-7.33) but not flagged intervention use (comfort GCD adjusted RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.49-2.28; medical GCD adjusted RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.48-2.02) or 30-day readmission (comfort GCD adjusted RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.85-1.19; medical GCD adjusted RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.97-1.20).Goals of Care Designation type early during admission was associated with LOS, RIW and palliative care referral. This suggests an alignment between health resource use and the focus of care communicated by each GCD.

Background Cannabis is frequently used recreationally and medicinally, including for symptom management in patients with kidney disease. Methods We elicited the views of Canadian adults with kidney disease regarding their cannabis use. Participants were asked whether they would try cannabis for anxiety, depression, restless legs, itchiness, fatigue, chronic pain, decreased appetite, nausea/vomiting, sleep, cramps and other symptoms. The degree to which respondents considered cannabis for each symptom was assessed with a modified Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1, definitely would not; 5, definitely would). Multilevel multivariable linear regression was used to identify respondent characteristics associated with considering cannabis for symptom control. Results Of 320 respondents, 290 (90.6%) were from in-person recruitment (27.3% response rate) and 30 (9.4%) responses were from online recruitment. A total of 160/320 respondents (50.2%) had previously used cannabis, including smoking [140 (87.5%)], oils [69 (43.1%)] and edibles [92 (57.5%)]. The most common reasons for previous cannabis use were recreation [84/160 (52.5%)], pain alleviation [63/160 (39.4%)] and sleep enhancement [56/160 (35.0%)]. Only 33.8% of previous cannabis users thought their physicians were aware of their cannabis use. More than 50% of respondents probably would or definitely would try cannabis for symptom control for all 10 symptoms. Characteristics independently associated with interest in trying cannabis for symptom control included symptom type (pain, sleep, restless legs), online respondent {β = 0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1–1.4]} and previous cannabis use [β = 1.2 (95% CI 0.9–1.5)]. Conclusions Many patients with kidney disease use cannabis and there is interest in trying cannabis for symptom control.

An understanding of the long-term outcomes of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease not treated with maintenance dialysis is needed to improve shared decision-making and care practices for this population.To evaluate survival, use of health care resources, changes in quality of life, and end-of-life care of patients with advanced kidney disease who forgo dialysis.MEDLINE, Embase (Excerpta Medica Database), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were searched from inception through December 3, 2021, for all English language longitudinal studies of adults in whom there was an explicit decision not to pursue maintenance dialysis. Two investigators independently reviewed all studies and selected those reporting survival, use of health care resources, changes in quality of life, or end-of-life care during follow-up. Studies of patients who initiated and then discontinued maintenance dialysis and patients in whom it was not clear that there was an explicit decision to forgo dialysis were excluded. One author abstracted all study data, of which 12% was independently adjudicated by a second author (1% error rate).Forty-one cohort studies comprising 5102 patients (range, 11-812 patients) were included in this systematic review (5%-99% men; mean age range, 60-87 years). Substantial heterogeneity in study designs and measures used to report outcomes limited comparability across studies. Median survival of cohorts ranged from 1 to 41 months as measured from a baseline mean estimated glomerular filtration rate ranging from 7 to 19 mL/min/1.73 m2. Patients generally experienced 1 to 2 hospital admissions, 6 to 16 in-hospital days, 7 to 8 clinic visits, and 2 emergency department visits per person-year. During an observation period of 8 to 24 months, mental well-being improved, and physical well-being and overall quality of life were largely stable until late in the illness course. Among patients who died during follow-up, 20% to 76% had enrolled in hospice, 27% to 68% died in a hospital setting and 12% to 71% died at home; 57% to 76% were hospitalized, and 4% to 47% received an invasive procedure during the final month of life.Many patients who do not pursue dialysis survived several years and experienced sustained quality of life until late in the illness course. Nonetheless, use of acute care services was common and intensity of end-of-life care highly variable across cohorts. These findings suggest that consistent approaches to the study of conservative kidney management are needed to enhance the generalizability of findings and develop models of care that optimize outcomes among conservatively managed patients.

Background Health information systems (HIS) are fundamental tools for the surveillance of health services, estimation of disease burden and prioritization of health resources. Several gaps in the availability of HIS for kidney disease were highlighted by the first iteration of the Global Kidney Health Atlas. Methods As part of its second iteration, the International Society of Nephrology conducted a cross-sectional global survey between July and October 2018 to explore the coverage and scope of HIS for kidney disease, with a focus on kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Results Out of a total of 182 invited countries, 154 countries responded to questions on HIS (85% response rate). KRT registries were available in almost all high-income countries, but few low-income countries, while registries for non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) or acute kidney injury (AKI) were rare. Registries in high-income countries tended to be national, in contrast to registries in low-income countries, which often operated at local or regional levels. Although cause of end-stage kidney disease, modality of KRT and source of kidney transplant donors were frequently reported, few countries collected data on patient-reported outcome measures and only half of low-income countries recorded process-based measures. Almost no countries had programs to detect AKI and practices to identify CKD-targeted individuals with diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease, rather than members of high-risk ethnic groups. Conclusions These findings confirm significant heterogeneity in the global availability of HIS for kidney disease and highlight important gaps in their coverage and scope, especially in low-income countries and across the domains of AKI, non-dialysis CKD, patient-reported outcomes, process-based measures and quality indicators for KRT service delivery.