An integrated review of "unplanned" dialysis initiation: reframing the terminology to "suboptimal" initiation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Ideally, care prior to the initiation of dialysis should increase the likelihood that patients start electively outside of the hospital setting with a mature arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter. However, unplanned dialysis continues to occur in patients both known and unknown to nephrology services, and in both late and early referrals. The objective of this article is to review the clinical and socioeconomic outcomes of unplanned dialysis initiation. The secondary objective is to explore the potential cost implications of reducing the rate of unplanned first dialysis in Canada.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to 2008 were used to identify studies examining the clinical, economic or quality of life (QoL) outcomes in patients with an unplanned versus planned first dialysis. Data were described in a qualitative manner.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eight European studies (5,805 patients) were reviewed. Duration of hospitalization and mortality was higher for the unplanned versus planned population. Patients undergoing a first unplanned dialysis had significantly worse laboratory parameters and QoL. Rates of unplanned dialysis ranged from 2449%. The total annual burden to the Canadian healthcare system of unplanned dialysis in 2005 was estimated at $33 million in direct hospital costs alone. Reducing the rate of unplanned dialysis by one-half yielded savings ranging from$13.3 to $16.1 million.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The clinical and socioeconomic impact of unplanned dialysis is significant. To more consistently characterize the unplanned population, the term <it>suboptimal initiation </it>is proposed to include dialysis initiation in hospital and/or with a central venous catheter and/or with a patient not starting on their chronic modality of choice. Further research and implementation of initiatives to reduce the rate of <it>suboptimal initiation </it>of dialysis in Canada are needed.</p

A practice-related risk score (PRS): a DOPPS-derived aggregate quality index for haemodialysis facilities

Background. The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) database was used to develop and validate a practice-related risk score (PRS) based on modifiable practices to help facilities assess potential areas for improving patient care. Methods. Relative risks (RRs) from a multivariable Cox mortality model, based on observational haemodialysis (HD) patient data from DOPPS I (1996-2001, seven countries), were used. The four practices were the percent of patients with Kt/V >= 1.2, haemoglobin >= 11 g/dl (110 g/l), albumin >= 4.0 g/dl (40g/l) and catheter use, and were significantly related to mortality when modelled together. DOPPS II data (2002-2004, 12 countries) were used to evaluate the relationship between PRS and mortality risk using Cox regression. Results. For facilities in DOPPS I and II, changes in PRS over time were significantly correlated with changes in the standardized mortality ratio (SMR). The PRS ranged from 1.0 to 2.1. Overall, the adjusted RR of death was 1.05 per 0.1 points higher PRS (P < 0.0001). For facilities in both DOPPS I and II (N = 119), a 0.2 decrease in PRS was associated with a 0.19 decrease in SMR (P = 0.005). On average, facilities that improved PRS practices showed significantly reduced mortality over the same time frame. Conclusions. The PRS assesses modifiable HD practices that are linked to improved patient survival. Further refinements might lead to improvements in the PRS and will address regional variations in the PRS/mortality relationship

What do hospital decision-makers in Ontario, Canada, have to say about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions?

BACKGROUND: Priority setting, also known as rationing or resource allocation, occurs at all levels of every health care system. Daniels and Sabin have proposed a framework for priority setting in health care institutions called 'accountability for reasonableness', which links priority setting to theories of democratic deliberation. Fairness is a key goal of priority setting. According to 'accountability for reasonableness', health care institutions engaged in priority setting have a claim to fairness if they satisfy four conditions of relevance, publicity, appeals/revision, and enforcement. This is the first study which has surveyed the views of hospital decision makers throughout an entire health system about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions. The purpose of this study is to elicit hospital decision-makers' self-report of the fairness of priority setting in their hospitals using an explicit conceptual framework, 'accountability for reasonableness'. METHODS: 160 Ontario hospital Chief Executive Officers, or their designates, were asked to complete a survey questionnaire concerning priority setting in their publicly funded institutions. Eight-six Ontario hospitals completed this survey, for a response rate of 54%. Six close-ended rating scale questions (e.g. Overall, how fair is priority setting at your hospital?), and 3 open-ended questions (e.g. What do you see as the goal(s) of priority setting in your hospital?) were used. RESULTS: Overall, 60.7% of respondents indicated their hospitals' priority setting was fair. With respect to the 'accountability for reasonableness' conditions, respondents indicated their hospitals performed best for the relevance (75.0%) condition, followed by appeals/revision (56.6%), publicity (56.0%), and enforcement (39.5%). CONCLUSIONS: For the first time hospital Chief Executive Officers within an entire health system were surveyed about the fairness of priority setting practices in their institutions using the conceptual framework 'accountability for reasonableness'. Although many hospital CEOs felt that their priority setting was fair, ample room for improvement was noted, especially for the enforcement condition

Pre-dialysis clinic attendance improves quality of life among hemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND: Although previous research has demonstrated that referral to pre-dialysis clinics is associated with favourable objective outcomes, the benefit of a pre-dialysis clinic from the perspective of patient-perceived subjective outcomes, such as quality of life (QOL), is less well defined. METHODS: A retrospective incident cohort study was conducted to determine if pre-dialysis clinic attendance was a predictor of better QOL scores measured within the first six months of hemodialysis (HD) initiation. Inclusion criteria were HD initiation from January 1 1998 to January 1 2000, diagnosis of chronic renal failure, and completion of the QOL questionnaire within six months of HD initiation. Patients receiving HD for less than four weeks were excluded. An incident cohort of 120 dialysis patients was identified, including 74 patients who attended at least one pre-dialysis clinic and 46 patients who did not. QOL was measured using the SF 36-Item Health Survey. Independent variables included age, sex, diabetes, pre-dialysis clinic attendance and length of attendance, history of ischemic heart disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, heart failure, malignancy, and chronic lung disease, residual creatinine clearance at dialysis initiation, and kt/v, albumin and hemoglobin at the time of QOL assessment. Bivariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were used to identify predictors of QOL scores. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis suggested that pre-dialysis clinic attendance was an independent predictor of higher QOL scores in four of eight health domains (physical function, p < 0.01; emotional role limitation, p = 0.01; social function, p = 0.01; and general health, p = 0.03), even after statistical adjustment for age, sex, residual renal function, kt/v, albumin, and co-morbid disease. Pre-dialysis clinic attendance was also an independent predictor of the physical component summary score (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that pre-dialysis clinic attendance favourably influences patient-perceived quality of life within six months of dialysis initiation

Supporting Spartina: Interdisciplinary perspective shows Spartina as a distinct solid genus

In 2014 a DNA-based phylogenetic study confirming the paraphyly of the grass subtribe Sporobolinae proposed the creation of a large monophyletic genus Sporobolus, including (among others) species previously included in the genera Spartina, Calamovilfa, and Sporobolus. Spartina species have contributed substantially (and continue contributing) to our knowledge in multiple disciplines, including ecology, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, biogeography, experimental ecology, environmental management, restoration ecology, history, economics, and sociology. There is no rationale so compelling to subsume the name Spartina as a subgenus that could rival the striking, global iconic history and use of the name Spartina for over 200 years. We do not agree with the arguments underlying the proposal to change Spartina to Sporobolus. We understand the importance of taxonomy and of formalized nomenclature and hope that by opening this debate we will encourage positive feedback that will strengthen taxonomic decisions with an interdisciplinary perspective. We consider the strongly distinct, monophyletic clade Spartina should simply and efficiently be treated as the genus Spartina

Should Nephrologists Take a Larger Role in Interventional Nephrology, and Should Central Line Insertion Remain a Requirement of Nephrology Residency Training? A Debate

The Canadian Society of Nephrology must soon provide input concerning the future of procedural training in nephrology. While at one time, the ability to insert a central venous catheter (CVC) was an essential skill required by all nephrologists, in 2014, nephrology training and practice has changed in fundamental ways such that it would be both unreasonable, and impractical, to maintain this requirement. Indeed, survey evidence suggests that many current trainees are not achieving this competency. Amongst the reasons that this requirement should be withdrawn include: 1) Not all trainees have the procedural skills to safely learn to insert CVC's. 2) Most nephrologists in training and in practice are intellectually oriented, not procedurally oriented and are not seeking to perform lots of procedures. 3) In most practice settings, interventional radiologists and intensive care doctors perform dialysis line insertions using real time ultrasound guidance frequently, and offer timely, safer, and better service to patients. 4) Most trainees will not enter practice settings where CVC insertion ability is required. 5) Otherwise excellent future trainees may be denied a nephrology certificate of special competence only because they are unable to insert a CVC by the end of their fellowship. 6) Academic nephrology training programs that cannot provide adequate CVC insertion experience to fellows may lose their status as training centres. As a pragmatic way forward, Canadian nephrology training programs must encourage and offer only those nephrology trainees who have the ability and interest in procedural nephrology, a pathway through which they may be provided superb advanced training to become an expert. There is no longer a compelling reason to mandate this for all trainees

Should nephrologists take a larger role in interventional nephrology, and should central line insertion remain a requirement of nephrology residency training? A debate

Abstract The Canadian Society of Nephrology must soon provide input concerning the future of procedural training in nephrology. While at one time, the ability to insert a central venous catheter (CVC) was an essential skill required by all nephrologists, in 2014, nephrology training and practice has changed in fundamental ways such that it would be both unreasonable, and impractical, to maintain this requirement. Indeed, survey evidence suggests that many current trainees are not achieving this competency. Amongst the reasons that this requirement should be withdrawn include: 1) Not all trainees have the procedural skills to safely learn to insert CVC’s. 2) Most nephrologists in training and in practice are intellectually oriented, not procedurally oriented and are not seeking to perform lots of procedures. 3) In most practice settings, interventional radiologists and intensive care doctors perform dialysis line insertions using real time ultrasound guidance frequently, and offer timely, safer, and better service to patients. 4) Most trainees will not enter practice settings where CVC insertion ability is required. 5) Otherwise excellent future trainees may be denied a nephrology certificate of special competence only because they are unable to insert a CVC by the end of their fellowship. 6) Academic nephrology training programs that cannot provide adequate CVC insertion experience to fellows may lose their status as training centres. As a pragmatic way forward, Canadian nephrology training programs must encourage and offer only those nephrology trainees who have the ability and interest in procedural nephrology, a pathway through which they may be provided superb advanced training to become an expert. There is no longer a compelling reason to mandate this for all trainees

Attitudes and Opinions of Canadian Nephrologists Toward Continuous Quality Improvement Options

Background and objectives: A shift to holding individual physicians accountable for patient outcomes, rather than facilities, is intuitively attractive to policy makers and to the public. We were interested in nephrologists’ attitudes to, and awareness of, quality metrics and how nephrologists would view a potential switch from the current model of facility-based quality measurement and reporting to publically available reports at the individual physician level. Design, setting, participants, and measurements: The study was conducted using a web-based survey instrument (Online Appendix 1). The survey was initially pilot tested on a group of 8 nephrologists from across Canada. The survey was then finalized and e-mailed to 330 nephrologists through the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) e-mail distribution list. The 127 respondents were 80% university based, and 33% were medical/dialysis directors. Results: The response rate was 43%. Results demonstrate that 89% of Canadian nephrologists are engaged in efforts to improve the quality of patient care. A minority of those surveyed (29%) had training in quality improvement. They feel accountable for this and would welcome the inclusion of patient-centered metrics of care quality. Support for public reporting as an effective strategy on an individual nephrologist level was 30%. Conclusions: Support for public reporting of individual nephrologist performance was low. The care of nephrology patients will be best served by the continued development of a critical mass of physicians trained in patient safety and quality improvement, by focusing on patient-centered metrics of care delivery, and by validating that all proposed new methods are shown to improve patient care and outcomes