Use Of Home Dialysis Research Articles

The Influence of Renal Centre and Patient Sociodemographic Factors on Home Haemodialysis Prevalence in the UK

Background: In the United Kingdom, socioeconomic disadvantage has been associated with lower use of home dialysis, mostly peritoneal dialysis. In this study, we explore the role of a patient's sociodemographic, socioeconomic differences and the centre's influence on home haemodialysis (HD) prevalence. Methods: Data is derived from the cross-sectional arm of the UK multi-centre study investigating barriers and enablers of home HD (BASIC-HHD study). Centres were classified as low- (<3%), medium- (5-8%) and high-prevalence groups (>8%). Sociodemographic and socioeconomic status data were ascertained. Patients were enrolled in hospital HD (n = 213), home HD (n = 93) and predialysis groups (n = 222). Results: The treating renal centre to which the patient belonged was significantly associated with a patient's modality in prevalent HD groups and modality-choice in the “predialysis” group, in confounder-adjusted multivariable analyses. Non-white ethnicity was associated with lower odds of self-care dialysis modality choice (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07-0.62) and lower odds of home HD uptake in the prevalent HD group (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-0.80). Other significant associations of home HD uptake in the HD cohort included lower age (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.89), higher education (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.25-7.16), home ownership (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09-0.70), childcare responsibility (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.66) and unrestricted mobility (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.91). Conclusion: “Centre” effect accounts for variation in home HD prevalence between renal units after accounting for sociodemographic parameters and co-morbidities. Unit practices and attitudes to home HD are likely to have a dominating impact on home HD prevalence rates and these aspects need to be explored systematically at the organisational level.

Peritoneal Dialysis or Hemodialysis: Present and Future Trends in the United States.

In 2013, 88.4% of all incident end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients began renal replacement therapy with hemodialysis (HD) while 9.0% began with peritoneal dialysis (PD). The remaining 2.6% received a preemptive kidney transplant. In the US, outpatient HD units are widely distributed and economy of scale has resulted in HD being the most common ESRD modality. Use of PD and preemptive kidney transplant were relatively more common in younger groups and relatively less common among Black and Hispanic patients. Of note is that the new Medicare reimbursement system, known as the 'bundle', provides substantial financial incentives to do PD as opposed to in-center HD. By the end of 2013, 63.9% of all prevalent ESRD cases were receiving HD, 6.9% were being treated with PD, and 29.3% had a functioning kidney transplant. Distributions of modality use by patient characteristics generally mirror those for incident patients. PD and kidney transplant were more commonly used among patients who were younger and were more likely to be non-Hispanic Whites. Differences in the use of home dialysis (PD and HD) are largely driven by differences among individual dialysis centers or groups of centers, rather than by large-scale regional effects. Thus, the future use of PD or home HD will be driven by the proclivities of the largest dialysis providers, which, in turn, are driven by financial reimbursement.

GUIDE, a structured pre-dialysis programme that increases the use of home dialysis.

BackgroundDespite the many advantages it offers, the percentage of dialysis patients that receive home dialysis [peritoneal dialysis (PD) or home haemodialysis (HHD)] in the Netherlands has declined over the last decade. Pre-dialysis education could stimulate the use of home dialysis. This article presents the results of the pre-dialysis programme GUIDE, with regard to the following question: Does the implementation of a structured pre-dialysis programme with a home-focused approach increase the number of pre-dialysis patients that choose and receive home dialysis?MethodsThe GUIDE process starts when a patient has an eGFR of 15 mL/min/1.73 m2. The process begins with a home visit from a case manager and the completion of questionnaires by the patient, the case manager and the nephrologist. A multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) is held to determine a specific patient profile (or treatment recommendation). This is followed by patient education, a second MDM and finally the selection of the treatment by the patient and the nephrologist. This retrospective observational study describes the selection process of all patients that received a treatment recommendation between 12 September 2013 and 18 December 2014 at Meander Medical Centre. Data were collected by file research and analysis of questionnaires.ResultsOne hundred and two patients were included. They started the process at a mean eGFR of 12.3 mL/min/1.73 m2. Home dialysis was recommended for 62.8% of the patients who were advised to have dialysis treatment. Of the patients that opted for dialysis, 34.2% chose PD and 8.2% chose HHD; 22.9% started home dialysis as their first therapy, compared with 17.6% in the months before implementation of GUIDE. Finally, 32.1% of the patients that received dialysis therapy received home dialysis. In the months before GUIDE, an average of just 19.5% of the patients that received dialysis received home dialysis.ConclusionsIn comparison to historical data, the pre-dialysis programme GUIDE increases the number of patients that choose and receive home dialysis.

Mortality, Hospitalization, and Technique Failure in Daily Home Hemodialysis and Matched Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Matched Cohort Study

Use of home dialysis is growing in the United States, but few direct comparisons of major clinical outcomes on daily home hemodialysis (HHD) versus peritoneal dialysis (PD) exist. Matched cohort study. We matched 4,201 new HHD patients in 2007 to 2010 with 4,201 new PD patients from the US Renal Data System database. Daily HHD versus PD. Relative mortality, hospitalization, and technique failure. Mean time from end-stage renal disease onset to home dialysis therapy initiation was 44.6 months for HHD and 44.3 months for PD patients. In intention-to-treat analysis, HHD was associated with 20% lower risk for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87), 8% lower risk for all-cause hospitalization (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.95), and 37% lower risk for technique failure (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.58-0.68), all relative to PD. In the subset of 1,368 patients who initiated home dialysis therapy within 6 months of end-stage renal disease onset, HHD was associated with similar risk for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.80-1.13), similar risk for all-cause hospitalization (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.05), and 30% lower risk for technique failure (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.82). Regarding hospitalization, risk comparisons favored HHD for cardiovascular disease and dialysis access infection and PD for bloodstream infection. Matching unlikely to reduce confounding attributable to unmeasured factors, including residual kidney function; lack of data regarding dialysis frequency, duration, and dose in daily HHD patients and frequency and solution in PD patients; diagnosis codes used to classify admissions. These data suggest that relative to PD, daily HHD is associated with decreased mortality, hospitalization, and technique failure. However, risks for mortality and hospitalization were similar with these modalities in new dialysis patients. The interaction between modality and end-stage renal disease duration at home dialysis therapy initiation should be investigated further.

Being-in-dialysis: The experience of the machine-body for home dialysis users.

New Zealand leads the world in rates of home dialysis use, yet little is known about the experience of home dialysis from the patient's perspective. This article contributes to the literature on the self-care of dialysis patients by examining the relevance of the concept of the machine-body and cyborg embodiment for the lived experience of people with end-stage renal failure. The article, which presents a discussion of 24 in-depth interviews undertaken between 2009 and 2012, shows that although dialysis therapy is disruptive of being and time, study participants experience home dialysis in terms of flexibility, control and independence. While they do not use the term machine-body as a descriptor, the concept resonates with felt experience. Data also indicate that positive experience of home dialysis is relative to socio-economic positioning and the lived relation of patients to others, necessitating further research to examine these factors.

Identification of Facilitators and Barriers to Home Dialysis Selection by Canadian Adults with ESRD

Home dialysis (home HD or home PD) remains underutilized in most jurisdictions. Physicians, advanced-practice nurses, and policy makers working with chronic kidney disease populations can provide insights into patient, healthcare professional, and system-level barriers to home dialysis selection by suitable patients. We used in-depth interviews, with a purposive sampling strategy until informational redundancy was achieved, to elicit barriers and facilitators to home dialysis selection from thirteen informants. We triangulated these data against qualitative data collected in a related survey of nephrologist attitudes. We used a modified grounded theory approach to construct a taxonomy of barriers and facilitators. Informants included nephrologists (n=11), an advanced-practice nurse, and a health administrator with a provincial renal care organization. We constructed separate taxonomies of barriers and related facilitators that were specific to PD, specific to home HD, and common to both. We distinguished between factors favoring, modifiable factors opposing, and nonmodifiable factors opposing home dialysis selection. Several major themes emerged, including: medical factors, home physical environment, psychological and cognitive factors (knowledge, attitudes, coping styles), social factors (supports, lifestyle), dialysis program, local hospital or regional factors (expertise, resources, local culture), healthcare professional-related factors (knowledge, attitudes, reimbursement), health system-related factors (funding models), and exogenous factors (late referral, technology). We identified several modifiable practices at the level of patient, healthcare professional, dialysis facility, and healthcare system to increase appropriate use of home dialysis. We discuss potential facilitating factors, knowledge gaps, and priorities for future research, and propose potential applications for this novel taxonomy of determinants of dialysis modality choice.

Establishing a national knowledge translation and generation network in kidney disease: the CAnadian KidNey KNowledge TraNslation and GEneration NeTwork.

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) do not always receive care consistent with guidelines, in part due to complexities in CKD management, lack of randomized trial data to inform care, and a failure to disseminate best practice. At a 2007 conference of key Canadian stakeholders in kidney disease, attendees noted that the impact of Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) guidelines was attenuated given limited formal linkages between the CSN Clinical Practice Guidelines Group, kidney researchers, decision makers and knowledge users, and that further knowledge was required to guide care in patients with kidney disease. The idea for the Canadian Kidney Knowledge Translation and Generation Network (CANN-NET) developed from this meeting. CANN-NET is a pan-Canadian network established in partnership with CSN, the Kidney Foundation of Canada and other professional societies to improve the care and outcomes of patients with and at risk for kidney disease. The initial priority areas for knowledge translation include improving optimal timing of dialysis initiation, and increasing the appropriate use of home dialysis. Given the urgent need for new knowledge, CANN-NET has also brought together a national group of experienced Canadian researchers to address knowledge gaps by encouraging and supporting multicentre randomized trials in priority areas, including management of cardiovascular disease in patients with kidney failure.

Renal centre characteristics and physician practice patterns associated with home dialysis use

There is a wide variation in home dialysis use (peritoneal dialysis and home haemodialysis) between renal centres. This study identifies which centre characteristics and practice patterns are associated with home dialysis use. An observational study of all UK patients starting renal replacement therapy (RRT) in 2007-2008 using patient characteristics from the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) and renal centre characteristics ascertained from a national survey. Multilevel logistic regression was used to examine the association between patient and centre characteristics and home dialysis uptake. Twenty-six per cent of 11 913 patients used home dialysis and survey responses were available from every renal centre. After taking into account patient factors, several centre factors were associated with a higher probability of home dialysis: physicians aspiring to a higher 'ideal' peritoneal dialysis rate (odds ratio, OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06-1.37, P = 0.003 per 10% increase in 'ideal' percentage), early use of peritoneal dialysis (PD, OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.18-1.95, P < 0.001), use of home visits to educate patients pre-dialysis (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.05-1.83, P = 0.02) and to provide trouble-shooting advice for existing home dialysis patients (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.11-2.42, P = 0.01). Using videos/DVDs as part of the pre-dialysis education programme was associated with a lower probability of home dialysis, but this was correlated with lower levels of physician enthusiasm (r = -0.48, P < 0.001). After adjustment for this, the association disappeared (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55-1.07, P = 0.1). Home dialysis use is associated with modifiable centre factors as well as individual patient characteristics.

Is Dorothy Correct? The Role of Patient Education in Promoting Home Dialysis

The major payer of dialysis services in the United States, Medicare, has established incentives to encourage the use of home dialysis. However, this modality remains underutilized. We think that a major cause of this situation is ineffective education of the prospective dialysis population regarding the choices of kidney replacement modalities. We discuss the value of patient education and the consequences of failing to educate prospective dialysis patients. We then explore approaches to achieve patient education goals and the physician's and education team's roles in the development of an individual patient's life plan.

Home dialysis-an international perspective.

Background. There is strong evidence from a range of long-term conditions of improved outcomes where patients are involved in self-management. Against this background, the international trend for home dialysis continues to decline, with centre-based haemodialysis continuing its dominance. Methods. An opinion-based commentary exploring practice patterns and drivers for home dialysis internationally. Data are drawn from a number of sources including the 2010 United States Renal Data System report. Results. Drivers behind the use of home dialysis are complex including factors relating to the patient and their carers, health care team, health care system, geography and cultural factors. There are important examples where local champions or public health initiatives have had a positive impact on the use of home dialysis; however, in many settings significant barriers remain. Better systems for giving patient information, shared decision making and involving patients in their own care may have the potential to act as a driver for change. Conclusion. Centre-based haemodialysis continues to dominate renal replacement therapy internationally with notable exceptions. Such dominance suggests that most patients worldwide do not get much choice when it comes to modality selection.

Dialysis Composite Rate Bundling: Potential Effects on the Utilization of Home Hemodialysis, Daily and Nocturnal Hemodialysis, and Peritoneal Dialysis

Home hemodialysis was introduced because it was less expensive than center dialysis, so allowing more patients to be treated with the limited funds available in the 1960s. The start of the Medicare ESRD Program in July 1973, with almost universal entitlement, removed the financial barriers, and had many other effects including reducing the use of home dialysis. Bundled payment for dialysis, including necessary dialysis supplies and laboratory tests, was introduced as the "composite" rate in 1983. Over the ensuing years, the costs of providing dialysis treatment increased, and expensive new drugs were introduced, particularly erythropoietin. As a result, the government introduced a more extensive bundle at the beginning of this year, aimed at better control of costs. This article considers the potential effect of this reimbursement change on home dialysis.

Bundled-Rate Legislation for Medicare Reimbursement for Dialysis Services

With the incidence of ESRD on the rise, there is a continuing need to control anemia-related treatment costs in dialysis patients receiving reimbursement through Medicare. Currently, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are billed separately from dialysis services, potentially creating little financial incentive for more efficient use. The Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in July 2008, includes provisions intended to address this concern. Under this act, dialysis services will be reimbursed using a fully bundled, comprehensive payment system that includes all services currently covered in the basic composite rate, as well as certain separately billable items, including ESAs. A base rate of $229.63 per treatment has been assigned, to be individualized using case-mix adjusters. The implications of this new system for anemia management with ESAs continue to be elucidated. With fixed compensation for ESAs, management strategies that maximize efficiencies and, thereby, optimize cost savings will be favored. Select strategies may include switching from intravenous (IV) to subcutaneous routes, lowering Hb targets and ESA doses in hyporesponsive patients, increasing administration of IV iron, increasing use of home dialysis, and optimizing ESA dosing intervals. Once-monthly ESA therapy has potential advantages under this new system as an alternative to more frequently administered ESAs and may help achieve quality metrics in a cost-efficient manner.

Dialysis Facility and Patient Characteristics Associated with Utilization of Home Dialysis

Nonmedical factors influencing utilization of home dialysis at the facility level are poorly quantified. Home dialysis is comparably effective and safe but less expensive to society and Medicare than in-center hemodialysis. Elimination of modifiable practice variation unrelated to medical factors could contribute to improvements in patient outcomes and use of scarce resources. Prevalent dialysis patient data by facility were collected from the 2007 ESRD Network's annual reports. Facility characteristic data were collected from Medicare's Dialysis Facility Compare file. A multivariate regression model was used to evaluate associations between the use of home dialysis and facility characteristics. The utilization of home dialysis was positively associated with facility size, percent patients employed full- or part-time, younger population, and years a facility was Medicare certified. Variables negatively associated include an increased number of hemodialysis patients per hemodialysis station, chain association, rural location, more densely populated zip code, a late dialysis work shift, and greater percent of black patients within a zip code. Improved understanding of factors affecting the frequency of use of home dialysis may help explain practice variations across the United States that result in an imbalanced use of medical resources within the ESRD population. In turn, this may improve the delivery of healthcare and extend the ability of an increasingly overburdened medical financing system to survive.

The financial implications for medicare of greater use of peritoneal dialysis

Background: Although annual per-person health care costs for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on in-center hemodialysis greatly exceed those for patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD), which is a home dialysis therapy, current use of PD remains low. In April 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a new Dialysis Conditions of Coverage final rule underscoring its intent to promote use of home dialysis whenever appropriate.Objectives: The objectives of this paper were to provide context for the use of in-home versus in-center dialysis, to describe factors that influence patterns of dialysis utilization in the United States, and to explore the magnitude of the potential savings that might result from broader use of home dialysis therapies.Methods: A 5-year budget-impact analysis was performed using data from the 2007 Annual Data Report of the United States Renal Data System. Scenarios were developed in which the PD share of total dialysis was varied to estimate the impact on total Medicare dialysis costs. This study took the perspective of Medicare, the main payer for dialysis in the United States.Results: If the PD share of total dialysis were to decrease from the current 8% to 5%, Medicare spending for dialysis would increase by an additional $401 million over a 5-year period. Alternatively, if the PD share of total dialysis were to increase to 15%, Medicare could realize potential savings of >$1.1 billion over 5 years.Conclusions: Similar to the conclusion articulated in the Dialysis Conditions of Coverage final rule, increasing clinically appropriate use of PD would be associated with considerable savings to Medicare and to the taxpayers who fund Medicare. These savings could be used to offset part of the financial burden of ESRD care on Medicare and to help legislators meet ever-tightening budgetary constraints.