In-center Hemodialysis Care Research Articles

Patient Care Technician Staffing and Outcomes Among US Patients Receiving In-Center Hemodialysis

Dialysis patient care technicians (PCTs) play a critical role in US in-center hemodialysis (HD) care, but little is known about the association of PCT staffing with patient outcomes at US HD facilities. To estimate the associations of in-center HD patient outcomes with facility-level PCT staffing. This was a retrospective cohort study, with data analysis performed from March 2023 to January 2024. Data on US patients with end-stage kidney disease and their treatment facilities were obtained from the US Renal Data System. Participants included patients (aged 18-100 years) initiating in-center HD between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018, who continued receiving in-center HD for 90 days or more and had data on PCT staffing at their initial treating HD facility. Facility-level patient-to-PCT ratios (number of HD patients divided by the number of PCTs reported by the treating facility in the prior year), categorized into quartiles (highest quartile denotes the highest PCT burden). Patient-level outcomes included 1-year patient mortality, hospitalization, and transplantation. Associations of outcomes with quartile of patient-to-PCT ratio were estimated using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) from mixed-effects Poisson regression, with adjustment for patient demographics and clinical and facility factors. A total of 236 126 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.1 [14.4] years; 135 952 [57.6%] male; 65 945 [27.9%] Black; 37 777 [16.0%] Hispanic; 153 637 [65.1%] White; 16 544 [7.0%] other race; 146 107 [61.9%] with diabetes) were included. After full adjustment, the highest vs lowest quartile of facility-level patient-to-PCT ratio was associated with a 7% higher rate of patient mortality (IRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.12), a 5% higher rate of hospitalization (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08), an 8% lower rate of waitlisting (IRR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98), and a 20% lower rate of transplant (IRR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91). The highest vs lowest quartile of patient-to-PCT ratio was also associated with an 8% higher rate of sepsis-related hospitalization (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.14) and a 15% higher rate of vascular access-related hospitalization (IRR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28). These findings suggest that initiation of treatment in facilities with the highest patient-to-PCT ratios may be associated with worse early mortality, hospitalization, and transplantation outcomes. These results support further investigation of the impact of US PCT staffing on patient safety and quality of US in-center HD care.

The Use of Telemedicine by US Nephrologists for In-Center Hemodialysis Care During the Pandemic: An Analysis of National Medicare Claims

Because of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the US government issued emergency waivers in March 2020 that removed regulatory barriers around the use of telemedicine. For the first time, nephrologists were reimbursed for telemedicine care delivered during in-center hemodialysis. We examined the use of telemedicine for in-center hemodialysis during the first 16 months of the pandemic. We ascertained telemedicine modifiers on nephrologist claims. We used multivariable regression to examine time trends and patient, dialysis facility, and geographic correlates of telemedicine use. We also examined whether the estimated effects of predictors of telemedicine use changed over time. US Medicare beneficiaries receiving in-center hemodialysis between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021. Patient, geographic, and dialysis facility characteristics. The use of telehealth for in-center hemodialysis care. Retrospective cohort analysis. Among 267,434 Medicare beneficiaries identified, the reported use of telemedicine peaked at 9% of patient-months in April 2020 and declined to 2% of patient-months by June 2021. Telemedicine use varied geographically and was more common in areas that were remote and socioeconomically disadvantaged. Patients were more likely to receive care by telemedicine in areas with higher incidence of COVID-19, although the predictive value of COVID-19 diminished later in the pandemic. Patients were more likely to receive care using telemedicine if they were at facilities with more staff, and the use of telemedicine varied by facility ownership type. Limited reporting of telemedicine on claims could lead to underestimation of its use. Reported telemedicine use was higher in an analysis designed to address this limitation by focusing on patients whose physicians used telemedicine at least once during the pandemic. Some US nephrologists continued to use telemedicine for in-center hemodialysis throughout the pandemic, even as the association between COVID-19 incidence and telemedicine use diminished over time. These findings highlight unique challenges and opportunities to the future use of telemedicine in dialysis care.

Patient, Caregiver, and Provider Perspectives on Improving Information Delivery in Hemodialysis: A Qualitative Study.

Background:Patients with kidney failure are exposed to a surfeit of new information about their disease and treatment, often resulting in ineffective communication between patients and providers. Improving the amount, timing, and individualization of information received has been identified as a priority in in-center hemodialysis care.Objective:To describe and explicate patient, caregiver, and health care provider perspectives regarding challenges and solutions to information transfer in clinical hemodialysis care.Design:In this multicenter qualitative study, we gathered perspectives of patients, their caregivers, and health care providers conducted through focus groups and interviews.Setting:Five Canadian hemodialysis centers: Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and Halifax.Participants:English-speaking adults receiving in-center hemodialysis for longer than 6 months, their caregivers, and hemodialysis health care providers.Methods:Between May 24, 2017, and August 16, 2018, data collected through focus groups and interviews with hemodialysis patients and their caregivers subsequently informed semi-structured interviews with health care providers. For this secondary analysis, data were analyzed through an inductive thematic analysis using grounded theory, to examine the data more deeply for overarching themes.Results:Among 82 patients/caregivers and 31 healthcare providers, 6 main themes emerged. Themes identified from patients/caregivers were (1) overwhelmed at initiation of hemodialysis care, (2) need for peer support, and (3) improving comprehension of hemodialysis processes. Themes identified from providers were (1) time constraints with patients, (2) relevance of information provided, and (3) technological innovations to improve patient engagement.Limitations:Findings were limited to Canadian context, English speakers, and individuals receiving hemodialysis in urban centers.Conclusions:Participants identified challenges and potential solutions to improve the amount, timing, and individualization of information provided regarding in-center hemodialysis care, which included peer support, technological innovations, and improved knowledge translation activities. Findings may inform the development of interventions and strategies aimed at improving information delivery to facilitate patient-centered hemodialysis care.

A Mixed Method Investigation to Determine Priorities for Improving Information, Interaction, and Individualization of Care Among Individuals on In-center Hemodialysis: The Triple I Study.

Background:Current health systems do not effectively address all aspects of chronic care. For better self-management of disease, kidney patients have identified the need for improved health care information, interaction with health care providers, and individualization of care.Objective:The Triple I study examined challenges to exchange of information, interaction between patients and health care providers and individualization of care in in-center hemodialysis with the aim of identifying the top 10 challenges that individuals on in-center hemodialysis face in these 3 areas.Design:We employed a sequential mixed methods approach with 3 phases:1. A qualitative study with focus groups and interviews (Apr 2017 to Aug 2018);2. A cross-sectional national ranking survey (Jan 2019 to May 2019);3. A prioritization workshop using a modified James Lind Alliance process (June 2019)Setting:In-center hemodialysis units in 7 academic centers across Canada: Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal, and Halifax.Participants:Individuals receiving in-center hemodialysis, their caregivers, and health care providers working in in-center hemodialysis participated in each of the 3 phases.Methods:In Phase 1, we collected qualitative data through (1) focus groups and interviews with hemodialysis patients and their caregivers and (2) individual interviews with health care providers and decision makers. Participants identified challenges to in-center hemodialysis care and potential solutions to these challenges. In Phase 2, we administered a pan-Canadian cross-sectional ranking survey. The survey asked respondents to prioritize the challenges to in-center hemodialysis care identified in Phase 1 by ranking their top 5 topics/challenges in each of the 3 “I” categories. In Phase 3, we undertook a face-to-face priority setting workshop which followed a modified version of the James Lind Alliance priority setting workshop process. The workshop employed an iterative process incorporating small and large group sessions during which participants identified, ranked, and voted on the top challenges and innovations to hemodialysis care. Four patient partners contributed to study design, implementation, analysis, and interpretation.Results:Across the 5 participating centers, we conducted 8 focus groups and 44 interviews, in which 113 participants identified 45 distinct challenges to in-center hemodialysis care. Subsequently, completion of a national ranking survey (n = 323) of these challenges resulted in a short-list of the top 30 challenges. Finally, using small and large group sessions to develop consensus during the prioritizing workshop, 38 stakeholders used this short-list to identify the top 10 challenges to in-center hemodialysis care. These included individualization of dialysis-related education; improved information in specific topic areas (transplant status, dialysis modalities, dialysis-related complications, and other health risks); more flexibility in hemodialysis scheduling; better communication and continuity of care within the health care team; and increased availability of transportation, financial, and social support programs.Limitations:Participants were from urban centers and were predominately English-speaking. Survey response rate of 31.5% in Phase 2 may have led to selection bias. We collected limited information on social determinants of health, which could confound our results.Conclusion:Overall, the challenges we identified demonstrate that individualized care and information that improves interaction with health care providers is important to patients receiving in-center hemodialysis. In future stages of this project, we will aim to address these challenges by trialing innovative patient-centered solutions.Trial Registration:Not applicable.

A Thematic Synthesis of the Experiences of Adults Living with Hemodialysis.

Patients on in-center dialysis spend significant amounts of time in the dialysis unit; additionally, managing ESRD affects many aspects of life outside the dialysis unit. To improve the care provided to patients requiring hemodialysis, their experiences and beliefs regarding treatment must be understood. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the experiences of patients receiving in-center hemodialysis. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Google Scholar, and reference lists for primary qualitative studies published from 1995 to 2015 that explored the experiences of adult patients receiving treatment with in-center hemodialysis. A thematic synthesis was conducted. Seventeen studies involving 576 patients were included in the synthesis. Four analytic themes were developed. The first theme (a new dialysis-dependent self) describes the changes in identity and perceptions of self that could result from dialysis dependence. The second theme (a restricted life) describes the physical and emotional constraints that patients described as a consequence of their dependence. Some patients reported strategies that allowed them to regain a sense of optimism and influence over the future, and these contributed to the third theme (regaining control). The first three themes describe a potential for change through acceptance, adaption, and regaining a sense of control. The final theme (relationships with health professionals) describes the importance of these relationships for in-center patients and their influence on perceptions of power and support. These relationships are seen to influence the other three themes through information sharing, continuity, and personalized support. Our synthesis has resulted in a framework that can be used to consider interventions to improve patients' experiences of in-center hemodialysis care. Focusing on interventions that are incorporated into the established relationships that patients have with their health care professionals may enable patients to progress toward a sense of control and improve satisfaction with care.

Satisfaction with Care of Patients on Hemodialysis

Little is known about patients receiving dialysis who respond to satisfaction and experience of care surveys and those who do not respond, nor is much known about the corollaries of satisfaction. This study examined factors predicting response to Dialysis Clinic, Inc. (DCI)'s patient satisfaction survey and factors associated with higher satisfaction among responders. A total of 10,628 patients receiving in-center hemodialysis care at 201 DCI facilities between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011, aged ≥18 years, treated during the survey administration window, and at the facility for ≥3 months before survey administration. Primary outcome was response to at least one of the nine survey questions; secondary outcome was overall satisfaction with care. Response rate was 77.3%. In adjusted logistic regression (odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals), race other than black (white race, 1.23 [1.10 to 1.37]), missed treatments (1.16 [1.02 to 1.32]) or shortened treatments (≥5 treatments, 1.40 [1.22 to 1.60]), more hospital days (>3 days in the last 3 months, 1.89 [1.66 to 2.15]), and lower serum albumin (albumin level <3.5 g/dl, 1.4 [1.28 to 1.73]) all independently predicted nonresponse. In adjusted linear regression, the following were more satisfied with care: older patients (age ≥63 years, 1.84 [1.78 to 1.90]; age <63 years, 1.91 [1.86 to 1.97]; P<0.001), white patients (1.76 [1.71 to 1.81]) versus black patients (1.93 [1.88 to 1.99]) or those of other race (1.93 [1.83 to 2.03]) (P<0.001), patients with shorter duration of dialysis (≤2.5 years, 1.79 [1.73 to 1.84]; >2.5 years, 1.96 [1.91 to 2.02]; P<0.001), patients who had missed one or fewer treatments (1.83 [1.78 to 1.88]) versus those who had missed more than one treatment (1.92 [1.85 to 1.98]; P=0.002) and those who had shortened treatment (for one treatment or less, 1.84 [1.77 to 1.90]; for two to four treatments, 1.87 [1.81 to 1.93]; for five or more treatments, 1.92 [1.87 to 1.98]; P=0.004). Survey results represent healthier and more adherent patients on hemodialysis. Shorter survey administration windows were associated with higher response rates. Older, white patients with shorter dialysis vintage were more satisfied.

National perspective on iron therapy as a clinical performance measure for maintenance hemodialysis patients

The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Core Indicators Project collects clinical information on prevalent adult patients receiving in-center hemodialysis care in the United States to assess the quality of care delivered. Although hematocrit values, transferrin saturations (TSATs) and iron prescription practices have improved over the last 5 years, we sought to determine whether there are continued opportunities for improvement of this domain of care. A random sample of 7,292 adult in-center hemodialysis patients was selected for the period October through December 1996. Hematocrit values, TSATs, serum ferritin concentrations, epoetin-alfa dosing, and iron prescriptions were abstracted from 4,991 patient medical records to assess anemia management practices. The mean hematocrit for this cohort was 32.6% ± 3.5%, and 72% of patients had hematocrit values greater than 30%. Ninety-four percent of patients received epoetin alfa intravenously, with a mean weekly epoetin dose of 202.4 ± 137.2 U/kg. The mean TSAT was 27.4% ± 12.6%; 73% of patients had TSATs ≥ 20%. The mean serum ferritin concentration was 386 ± 422 ng/mL; 79% and 12% of patients had serum ferritin concentrations greater than 100 ng/mL and greater than 800 ng/mL, respectively. Nine percent of the sample had TSATs less than 20% and serum ferritin concentrations less than 100 ng/mL. Regardless of the TSAT, approximately three fourths of patients received iron; only about half received IV iron. Of the subset of patients with TSATs less than 20% and serum ferritin concentration less than 800 ng/mL, only 53% were prescribed IV iron. Although substantial improvements have been made in anemia management in hemodialysis patients over the last 5 years, significant opportunities persist to improve iron prescription practices. Am J Kidney Dis 34:s5-s11, 1999. Copyright © 1999 by National Kidney Foundation