Dialysis Providers Research Articles

Controlling Time-Dependent Confounding by Health Status and Frailty: Restriction Versus Statistical Adjustment.

Nonexperimental studies of preventive interventions are often biased because of the healthy-user effect and, in frail populations, because of confounding by functional status. Bias is evident when estimating influenza vaccine effectiveness, even after adjustment for claims-based indicators of illness. We explored bias reduction methods while estimating vaccine effectiveness in a cohort of adult hemodialysis patients. Using the United States Renal Data System and linked data from a commercial dialysis provider, we estimated vaccine effectiveness using a Cox proportional hazards marginal structural model of all-cause mortality before and during 3 influenza seasons in 2005/2006 through 2007/2008. To improve confounding control, we added frailty indicators to the model, measured time-varying confounders at different time intervals, and restricted the sample in multiple ways. Crude and baseline-adjusted marginal structural models remained strongly biased. Restricting to a healthier population removed some unmeasured confounding; however, this reduced the sample size, resulting in wide confidence intervals. We estimated an influenza vaccine effectiveness of 9% (hazard ratio = 0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.72, 1.15) when bias was minimized through cohort restriction. In this study, the healthy-user bias could not be controlled through statistical adjustment; however, sample restriction reduced much of the bias.

SURVEY OF STAFF OPINIONS ABOUT EXTENDED HAEMODIALYSIS TREATMENT TIME AND SERVICE IMPLICATIONS.

We explored the potential impact of staff opinions and service provision upon patient's willingness to recruit to a clinical trial studying the effects of extended treatment time (TT) on haemodialysis (HD), six hours versus four hours for a period of twenty-four weeks. We conducted a local survey of dialysis nurses and a national survey of multidisciplinary HD staff opinions to extended TT including clinical benefits, tolerance to, prescription and ability to accommodate extended TT on in-centre HD programmes. The survey was completed by 56/134 (42%) local nurses and the national survey by 15/72 (21%) of dialysis providers across the UK (35% nurses and 75% other healthcare professionals). The majority of respondents felt extended TT was clinically beneficial but only 42% of nurses would recommend extended TT compared to 95% of non-nursing healthcare professionals (p < 0.0001). Although 45% of nurses felt that it was well tolerated, non-nursing healthcare professionals suggested this was significantly higher at 75% (p < 0.05). The negative impact on service provision was agreed by 83% of nurses with the need to facilitate shifts within a finite time period and pressure to find session spaces being cited. There is conflict between the understanding that extended TT is clinically beneficial and its prescription & delivery to patients. Enrolment to studies examining HD delivery strategies may be influenced by service provision and staff attitudes. In centre HD has been designed to maximise patient throughput and we may need to consider more flexible settings in which to deliver longer treatment time: Home HD maybe a solution.

How the ESRD quality incentive program could potentially improve quality of life for patients on dialysis.

For over 20 years, the quality of medical care of the Medicare ESRD Program has been a concern. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have implemented the ESRD Quality Incentive Program, which uses the principles of value-based purchasing; dialysis providers are paid for performance on predefined quality measures, with a goal of improving patient outcomes and the quality of patient care. The ESRD Quality Incentive Program measures have been criticized, because they are largely disease oriented and use easy-to-obtain laboratory-based indicators, such as Kt/V and hemoglobin, that do not reflect outcomes that are most important to patients and have had a minimal effect on survival or quality of life. A key goal of improving quality of care is to enhance quality of life, a patient-important quality measure that matters more to many patients than even survival. None of the ESRD Quality Incentive Program measures assess patient-reported quality of life. As outlined in the National Quality Strategy, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are holding providers accountable in six priority domains, in which quality measures have been and are being developed for value-based purchasing. Three measures-patient experience and engagement, clinical care, and care coordination-are particularly relevant to quality care in the ESRD Program; the 2014 ESRD Quality Incentive Program includes six measures, none of which provide data from a patient-centered perspective. Value-based purchasing is a well intentioned step to improve care of patients on dialysis. However, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services need to implement significant change in what is measured for the ESRD Quality Incentive Program to be patient centered and aligned with patients' values, preferences, and needs. This paper provides examples of potential quality measures for patient experience and engagement, clinical care, and care coordination, which if implemented, would be much more likely to enhance quality of life for patients with ESRD than present ESRD Quality Incentive Program measures.

Nutrition and dietary intake and their association with mortality and hospitalisation in adults with chronic kidney disease treated with haemodialysis: protocol for DIET-HD, a prospective multinational cohort study

IntroductionAdults with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) treated with haemodialysis experience mortality of between 15% and 20% each year. Effective interventions that improve health outcomes for long-term dialysis patients remain unproven....

Improving the quality and efficiency of conventional in-center hemodialysis.

There is substantial variability at international, national, and regional levels in how effective dialysis providers are in the implementation of well-accepted interventions to deliver better health outcomes at reduced costs to payers. The growing number of dialysis patients within a finite pool of resources has led to searches for more efficient methods to provide patient care without compromising or diminishing quality. We review here some contemporary concepts surrounding quality improvement and operations research that may provide clinician administrators to both improve efficiency and quality in facility based hemodialysis units. The creation of balanced scorecards, utilization of process mapping techniques, and the application of LEAN principles may readily improve how hemodialysis care is delivered in an environment of increasing patient volumes and reduced operating resources.

Association of Thyroid Functional Disease With Mortality in a National Cohort of Incident Hemodialysis Patients

Hypothyroidism is a common condition that disproportionately affects hemodialysis patients. In the general population, hypothyroidism is associated with higher mortality, particularly in populations with underlying cardiovascular risk. Despite their heightened cardiovascular mortality, the impact of hypothyroidism on the survival of hemodialysis patients remains uncertain. To examine whether hypothyroidism is independently associated with higher mortality in hemodialysis patients. Among 8840 incident hemodialysis patients receiving care from a large national dialysis provider from January 2007 to December 2011, we examined the association of hypothyroidism (TSH >5.0 mIU/L) with mortality. Associations between baseline and time-dependent hypothyroidism with all-cause mortality were determined using case-mix adjusted Cox models. In secondary analyses, we examined the impact of low-normal, upper-normal, subclinical range, and overt range TSH levels (TSH ≥ 0.5-3.0, >3.0-5.0, >5.0-10.0, and >10.0 mIU/L, respectively) on mortality risk. The study population consisted of 1928 (22%) hypothyroid and 6912 (78%) euthyroid patients. Baseline and time-dependent hypothyroidism were associated with higher mortality: adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 1.47 (1.34-1.61) and 1.62 (1.45-1.80), respectively. Compared to low-normal TSH, upper-normal, subclinical hypothyroid, and overt hypothyroid TSH levels were associated with incrementally higher adjusted death risk in baseline and time-dependent analyses. In time-dependent analyses, the hypothyroidism-mortality association was increasingly stronger across higher body mass index strata. Hypothyroidism as well as upper-normal TSH levels are associated with higher mortality in hemodialysis patients. Further studies are needed to determine whether restoration of TSH to low-normal levels with thyroid hormone replacement therapy ameliorates adverse outcomes in hemodialysis patients.

Major Declines in Epoetin Dosing after Prospective Payment System Based on Dialysis Facility Organizational Status

Background: Epoetin therapy used to treat anemia among ESRD patients has cost Medicare ∼$40 billion. Since January 2011, epoetin has been reimbursed via a new bundled prospective payment system (PPS). Our aim was to determine changes in epoetin dosing and hematocrit levels in response to PPS by different types of dialysis providers. Methods: Data from the USRDS were used to identify 187,591 and 206,163 Medicare-eligible ESRD patients receiving hemodialysis during January 2010 (pre-PPS) and December 2011 (post-PPS). Standardized weekly mean epoetin dose administered pre- and post-PPS and adjustment in dose (titration) based on previous hematocrit level in each facility was disaggregated by profit status, chain membership and size. Results: Major declines in epoetin use, dosing and achieved hematocrit levels were observed after PPS. Among the three largest dialysis chains, the decline in standardized epoetin dose was 29% at Fresenius, 47% at DaVita, and 52% at DCI. The standardized weekly epoetin dose among profit and nonprofit facilities declined by 38 and 42%, respectively. Changes in titration patterns suggest that a new hematocrit target of 30-33% was in place after PPS, replacing the erstwhile 33-36% hematocrit target used before PPS. Conclusion: Historically, important differences in anemia management were evident by dialysis organizational status. However, the confluence of financial incentives bundling epoetin payments and mounting scientific evidence linking higher hematocrit targets and higher epoetin doses to adverse outcomes have culminated in lower access to epoetin and lower doses across all dialysis providers in the first year after PPS.

Overcoming the Underutilisation of Peritoneal Dialysis.

Peritoneal dialysis is troubled with declining utilisation as a form of renal replacement therapy in developed countries. We review key aspects of therapy evidenced to have a potential to increase its utilisation. The best evidence to repopulate PD programmes is provided for the positive impact of timely referral and systematic and motivational predialysis education: average odds ratio for instituting peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis was 2.6 across several retrospective studies on the impact of predialysis education. Utilisation of PD for unplanned acute dialysis starts facilitated by implantation of peritoneal catheters by interventional nephrologists may diminish the vast predominance of haemodialysis done by central venous catheters for unplanned dialysis start. Assisted peritoneal dialysis can improve accessibility of home based dialysis to elderly, frail, and dependant patients, whose quality of life on replacement therapy may benefit most from dialysis performed at home. Peritoneal dialysis providers should perform close monitoring, preventing measures, and timely prophylactic therapy in patients judged to be prone to EPS development. Each peritoneal dialysis programme should regularly monitor, report, and act on key quality indicators to manifest its ability of constant quality improvement and elevate the confidence of interested patients and financing bodies in the programme.

Causes for Withdrawal in an Urban Peritoneal Dialysis Program.

Background. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an underutilized dialysis modality in the United States, especially in urban areas with diverse patient populations. Technique retention is a major concern of dialysis providers and might influence their approach to patients ready to begin dialysis therapy. Methods. Records from January 2009 to March 2014 were abstracted for demographic information, technique duration, and the reasons for withdrawal. Results. The median technique survival of the 128 incident patients during the study window was 781 days (2.1 years). The principle reasons for PD withdrawal were repeated peritonitis (30%); catheter dysfunction (18%); ultrafiltration failure (16%); patient choice or lack of support (16%); or hernia, leak, or other surgical complications (6%); and a total of 6 patients died during this period. Of the patients who did not expire and were not transplanted, most transferred to in-center hemodialysis and 8% transitioned to home-hemodialysis. Conclusions. Our findings suggest measures to ensure proper catheter placement and limiting infectious complications should be primary areas of focus in order to promote technique retention. Lastly, more focused education about home-hemodialysis as an option may allow those on PD who are beginning to demonstrate signs of technique failure to stay on home therapy.

Legal Issues for the Medical Director.

The nephrologist serving as medical director of a dialysis clinic must understand that the role of director is not simply an extension of being a good nephrologist. The two roles-nephrology practice and the leadership of a dialysis clinic-may be filled by a single person. However, each role contains unique tasks, requiring specific skill sets, and each role comes with inherent, associated legal risks. The medical director assumes a new level of responsibility and accountability defined by contractual obligations to the dialysis provider and by state and federal regulations. Hence, a medical director is accountable not only for providing standard-of-care treatment to his or her private practice patients dialyzed at the clinic but also for maintaining the safety of the dialysis clinic patient population and staff. Accordingly, a nephrologist serving in the role of medical director faces distinct legal risks beyond typical professional liability concerns. The medical director must also be mindful of regulatory compliance, unique avenues to licensure board complaints, and implications of careless communication habits. A thoughtful and prepared medical director can mitigate these risk exposures by understanding the sources of these challenges: contractual obligations, pertinent regulatory responsibilities, and the modern electronic communications environment.

The medical director and quality requirements in the dialysis facility.

Four decades after the successful implementation of the ESRD program currently providing life-saving dialysis therapy to >430,000 patients, the definitions of and demands for a high-quality program have evolved and increased at the same time. Through substantial technological advances ESRD care improved, with a predominant focus on the technical aspects of care and the introduction of medications such as erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and active vitamin D for anemia and bone disease management. Despite many advances, the size of the program and the increasingly older and multimorbid patient population have contributed to continuing challenges for providing consistently high-quality care. Medicare's Final Rule of the Conditions for Coverage (April 2008) define the medical director of the dialysis center as the leader of the interdisciplinary team and the person ultimately accountable for quality, safety, and care provided in the center. Knowledge and active leadership with a hands-on approach in the quality assessment and performance improvement process (QAPI) is essential for the achievement of high-quality outcomes in dialysis centers. A collaborative approach between the dialysis provider and medical director is required to optimize outcomes and deliver evidence-based quality care. In 2011 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services introduced a pay-for-performance program-the ESRD quality incentive program (QIP)- with yearly varying quality metrics that result in payment reductions in subsequent years when targets are not achieved during the performance period. Success with the QIP requires a clear understanding of the structure, metrics, and scoring methods. Information on achievement and nonachievement is publicly available, both in facilities (through the facility performance score card) and on public websites (including Medicare's Dialysis Facility Compare). By assuming the leadership role in the quality program of dialysis facilities, the medical director is given an important opportunity to improve patients' lives and effect true change in a patient population dealing with a very challenging chronic disease. This article in the series on the role of the medical director summarizes the medical director's specific role in the quality improvement process in the dialysis facility and the associated requirements and programs, including QAPI and QIP.

Intradialytic hypotension and risk of cardiovascular disease.

Patients undergoing hemodialysis have an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease-related morbidity and mortality compared with the general population. Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is estimated to occur during 20%-30% of hemodialysis sessions. To date, no large studies have examined whether IDH is associated with cardiovascular outcomes. This study determined the prevalence of IDH according to interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) and studied the association between IDH and outcomes for cardiovascular events and mortality to better understand its role. This study retrospectively examined records of 39,497 hemodialysis patients during 2007 and 2008. US Renal Data System claims and dialysis provider data were used to determine outcomes. IDH was defined by current Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative guidelines (≥20 mmHg fall in systolic BP from predialysis to nadir intradialytic levels plus ≥2 responsive measures [dialysis stopped, saline administered, etc.]). IDWG was measured absolutely (in kilograms) and relatively (in percentages). IDH occurred in 31.1% of patients during the 90-day exposure assessment period. At baseline, the higher the IDWG (relative or absolute), the greater the frequency of IDH (P<0.001). For all-cause mortality, the median follow-up was 398 days (interquartile range, 231-602 days). Compared with patients without IDH, IDH was associated with all-cause mortality (7646 events; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.14]), myocardial infarction (2396 events; 1.20 [1.10 to 1.31]), hospitalization for heart failure/volume overload (8896 events; 1.13 [1.08 to 1.18]), composite hospitalization for heart failure/volume overload or cardiovascular mortality (10,805 events; 1.12 [1.08 to 1.17]), major adverse cardiac events (MACEs; myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality) (4994 events, 1.10 [1.03 to 1.17]), and MACEs+ (MACEs plus arrhythmia or hospitalization for heart failure/volume overload) (12,221 events; 1.14 [1.09 to 1.19]). IDH was potently associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Clinical trials to ascertain causality are needed and should consider reduction in IDWG as a potential means to reduce IDH.

The medical director in integrated clinical care models.

Integrated clinical care models, like Accountable Care Organizations and ESRD Seamless Care Organizations, present new opportunities for dialysis facility medical directors to affect changes in care that result in improved patient outcomes. Currently, there is little scholarly information on what role the medical director should play. In this opinion-based review, it is predicted that dialysis providers, the hospitals in which the medical director and staff physicians practice, and the payers with which they contract are going to insist that, as care becomes more integrated, dialysis facility medical directors participate in new ways to improve quality and decrease the costs of care. Six broad areas are proposed where dialysis unit medical directors can have the greatest effect on shifting the quality-care paradigm where integrated care models are used. The medical director will need to develop an awareness of the regional medical care delivery system, collect and analyze actionable data, determine patient outcomes to be targeted that are mutually agreed on by participating physicians and institutions, develop processes of care that result in improved patient outcomes, and lead and inform the medical staff. Three practical examples of patient-centered, quality-focused programs developed and implemented by dialysis unit medical directors and their practice partners that targeted dialysis access, modality choice, and fluid volume management are presented. Medical directors are encouraged to move beyond traditional roles and embrace responsibilities associated with integrated care.

Medical Director Responsibilities to the ESRD Network.

The 18 regional ESRD Networks are established in legislation and contract with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to improve the quality and safety of dialysis, maximize patient rehabilitation, encourage collaboration among and between providers toward common quality goals, and improve the reliability and the use of data in pursuit of quality improvement. The Networks are funded by a $0.50 per treatment fee deducted from the reimbursement to dialysis providers, and their deliverables are determined by a statement of work, which is updated in a new contract every 3 years. The Conditions for Coverage require dialysis providers to participate in Network activities, and failure to do so can be the basis for sanctions against the provider. However, the Networks attempt to foster a collegial relationship with dialysis facilities by offering tools, educational activities, and other resources to assist the facilities in meeting the evolving requirements by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on the basis of national aims and domains for quality improvement in health care that transcend the ESRD program. Because of his/her responsibility for implementing the quality assessment and performance improvement activities in the facility, the medical director has much to gain by actively participating in Network activities, especially those focused on quality, safety, patient grievance, patient engagement, and coordination of care. Membership on Network committees can also foster the professional growth of the medical director through participation in quality improvement activity development and implementation, authorship of articles in peer-reviewed journals, creation of educational tools and presentations, and application of Network-sponsored materials to improve patient outcomes, engagement, and satisfaction in the medical director's facility. The improvement of care of patients on dialysis will be beneficial to the facility in achieving its goals of quality, safety, and financial viability.

Hemoglobin Stability and Patient Compliance With Darbepoetin Alfa in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients After the Implementation of the Prospective Payment System

PurposeSince the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented the End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System, dialysis providers have increasingly focused on balancing resource utilization and quality outcomes for the treatment of anemia in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis. Limited data exist regarding anemia management outcomes for these patients in US-based dialysis centers after the implementation of the new payment system. MethodsThis was a retrospective, observational, cohort study of stable PD patients with end-stage renal disease who received darbepoetin alfa for anemia management over a 15-month period (April 1, 2011–June 29, 2012). The medication was administered by staff in the home-training unit instead of being self-administered at home. The primary end point was mean quarterly hemoglobin (Hb) levels. Variability in Hb levels was assessed over the 5 quarters by using repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in the observed mean SDs. FindingsIn the 139 adult patients on stable peritoneal dialysis and meeting the eligibility criteria, mean (SD) Hb level by quarter was 10.8 (1.2) g/dL in quarters 2 and 3 of 2011, 10.5 (1.1) g/dL in quarter 4 of 2011, and 10.4 (1.1) g/dL in quarters 1 and 2 of 2012. Hb levels were stable (mean SDs, 0.58–0.72) over the 5 quarters of the study. Patient compliance with attendance for all scheduled home training unit visits was 84%. ImplicationsPD patients who underwent darbepoetin alfa administration and twice-monthly laboratory testing in the home-training unit had stable Hb levels. Despite more frequent center visits compared with a home-administered approach, patient compliance was high.

Peritoneal dialysis in an extremely low-birth-weight infant with acute kidney injury.

Critically ill neonates are at high risk for acute kidney injury (AKI). Renal supportive therapy (RST) can be an important tool for supporting critically ill neonates with AKI, particularly in cases of oliguria and fluid overload. There are few reports of RST for management of oligo-anuric AKI in the extremely low-birth-weight infant weighing <1000 g. We report successful provision of peritoneal dialysis (PD) to an 830-g neonate with oligo-anuric AKI through adaptation of a standard pediatric acute PD catheter.

Rebasing the Medicare payment for dialysis: rationale, challenges, and opportunities.

After Medicare's implementation of the bundled payment for dialysis in 2011, there has been a predictable decrease in the use of intravenous drugs included in the bundle. The change in use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, which decreased by 37% between 2007, when its allowance in the bundle was calculated, and 2012, was because of both changes in the Food and Drug Administration labeling for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in 2011 and cost-containment efforts at the facility level. Legislation in 2012 required Medicare to decrease (rebase) the bundled payment for dialysis in 2014 to reflect this decrease in intravenous drug use, which amounted to a cut of 12% or $30 per treatment. Medicare subsequently decided to phase in this decrease in payment over several years to offset the increase in dialysis payment that would otherwise have occurred with inflation. A 3% reduction from the rebasing would offset an approximately 3% increase in the market basket that determines a facility's costs for 2014 and 2015. Legislation in March of 2014 provides that the rebasing will result in a 1.25% decrease in the market basket adjustment in 2016 and 2017 and a 1% decrease in the market basket adjustment in 2018 for an aggregate rebasing of 9.5% spread over 5 years. Adjusting to this payment decrease in inflation-adjusted dollars will be challenging for many dialysis providers in an industry that operates at an average 3%-4% margin. Closure of facilities, decreases in services, and increased consolidation of the industry are possible scenarios. Newer models of reimbursement, such as ESRD seamless care organizations, offer dialysis providers the opportunity to align incentives between themselves, nephrologists, hospitals, and other health care providers, potentially improving outcomes and saving money, which will be shared between Medicare and the participating providers.

Patient- and provider-reported information about transplantation and subsequent waitlisting.

Because informed consent requires discussion of alternative treatments, proper consent for dialysis should incorporate discussion about other renal replacement options including kidney transplantation (KT). Accordingly, dialysis providers are required to indicate KT provision of information (KTPI) on CMS Form-2728; however, provider-reported KTPI does not necessarily imply adequate provision of information. Furthermore, the effect of KTPI on pursuit of KT remains unclear. We compared provider-reported KTPI (Form-2728) with patient-reported KTPI (in-person survey of whether a nephrologist or dialysis staff had discussed KT) in a prospective ancillary study of 388 hemodialysis initiates. KTPI was reported by both patient and provider for 56.2% of participants, by provider only for 27.8%, by patient only for 8.3%, and by neither for 7.7%. Among participants with provider-reported KTPI, older age was associated with lack of patient-reported KTPI. Linkage with the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients showed that 20.9% of participants were subsequently listed for KT. Patient-reported KTPI was independently associated with a 2.95-fold (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.54 to 5.66; P=0.001) higher likelihood of KT listing, whereas provider-reported KTPI was not associated with listing (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.60 to 2.32; P=0.62). Our findings suggest that patient perception of KTPI is more important for KT listing than provider-reported KTPI. Patient-reported and provider-reported KTPI should be collected for quality assessment in dialysis centers because factors associated with discordance between these metrics might inform interventions to improve this process.

Improving Clinical Outcomes Among Hemodialysis Patients: A Proposal for a “Volume First” Approach From the Chief Medical Officers of US Dialysis Providers

Addressing fluid intake and volume control requires alignment and coordination of patients, providers, dialysis facilities, and payers, potentially necessitating a "Volume First" approach. This article reports the consensus opinions achieved at the March 2013 symposium of the Chief Medical Officers of 14 of the largest dialysis providers in the United States. These opinions are based on broad experience among participants, but often reinforced by only observational and frequently retrospective studies, highlighting the lack of high-quality clinical trials in nephrology. Given the high morbidity and mortality rates among dialysis patients and the absence of sufficient trial data to guide most aspects of hemodialysis therapy, participants believed that immediate attempts to improve care based on quality improvement initiatives, physiologic principles, and clinical experiences are warranted until such time as rigorous clinical trial data become available. The following overarching consensus opinions emerged. (1) Extracellular fluid status should be a component of sufficient dialysis, such that approaching normalization of extracellular fluid volume should be a primary goal of dialysis care. (2) Fluid removal should be gradual and dialysis treatment duration should not routinely be less than 4 hours without justification based on individual patient factors. (3) Intradialytic sodium loading should be avoided by incorporating dialysate sodium concentrations set routinely in the range of 134-138 mEq/L, avoidance of routine use of sodium modeling, and avoidance of hypertonic saline solution. (4) Dietary counseling should emphasize sodium avoidance.

Confounders of mortality and hospitalization rate calculations for profit and nonprofit dialysis facilities: analytic augmentation.

BackgroundPatient outcomes have been compared on the basis of the profit status of the dialysis provider (for-profit [FP] and not-for-profit [NFP]). In its annual report, United States Renal Data System (USRDS) provides dialysis provider level death and hospitalization rates adjusted by age, race, sex, and dialysis vintage; however, recent analyses have suggested that other variables impact these outcomes. Our current analysis of hospitalization and mortality rates of hemodialysis patients included adjustments for those used by the USRDS plus other potential confounders: facility geography (end-stage renal disease network), length of facility ownership, vascular access at first dialysis session, and pre-dialysis nephrology care.MethodsWe performed a provider level, retrospective analysis of 2010 hospitalization and mortality rates among US hemodialysis patients exclusively using USRDS sources. Crude and adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated using the 4 standard USRDS patient factors plus the 4 potential confounders noted above.ResultsThe analysis included 366,011 and 34,029 patients treated at FP and NFP facilities, respectively. There were statistical differences between the cohorts in geography, facility length of ownership, vascular access, and pre-dialysis nephrology care (p < 0.001), as well as age (p < 0.01), race (p < 0.001), and vintage (p < 0.001), but not sex (p = 0.12). When using standard USRDS adjustments, hospitalization and mortality rates for FP and NFP facilities were most disparate, favoring the NFP facilities. Rates were most similar between providers when adjustments were made for each of the 8 factors. With the FP IRR as the referent (1.0), the hospitalization IRR for NFP facilities was 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.02; p = 0.69), while the NFP mortality IRR was 1.01 (95% CI 0.97-1.05; p = 0.64).ConclusionsThese data suggest there is no difference in mortality and hospitalization rates between FP and NFP dialysis clinics when appropriate statistical adjustments are made.