7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Care Practices for Patients With Advanced Kidney Disease Who Forgo Maintenance Dialysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Although maintenance dialysis is a treatment choice with potential benefits and harms, little is known about care practices for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease who forgo this treatment.

          Objective

          To describe how decisions not to start dialysis unfold in the clinical setting.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          A qualitative study was performed of documentation in the electronic medical records of 851 adults receiving care from the US Veterans Health Administration between January 1, 2000, and October 1, 2011, who had chosen not to start dialysis. Qualitative analysis was performed between March 1, 2017, and April 1, 2018.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Dominant themes that emerged from clinician documentation of clinical events and health care interactions between patients, family members, and clinicians relevant to the decision to forgo dialysis.

          Results

          In the cohort of 851 patients (842 men and 9 women; mean [SD] age, 75.0 [10.3] years), 567 (66.6%) were white. Three major dynamics relevant to understanding how decisions to forgo dialysis unfolded were identified. The first dynamic was that of dialysis as the norm: when patients expressed a desire to forgo dialysis, it was unusual for clinicians to readily accept patients’ decisions. Clinicians tended to repeatedly question this preference over time, deliberated about patients’ competency to make this decision, used a variety of strategies to encourage patients to initiate dialysis, and prepared for patients to change their minds and start dialysis. The second dynamic arose when patients were not candidates for dialysis: clinicians viewed particular patients as not candidates or appropriate for dialysis, usually on the basis of specific characteristics and/or expected prognosis, rather than after consideration of patients’ goals and values. When clinicians decided patients were not candidates for dialysis, there seemed to be little room for uncertainty in these decisions. The third dynamic occurred when clinicians believed they had little to offer patients beyond dialysis: when it was clear that patients would not be starting dialysis, nephrologists often signed off from their care and had few recommendations other than referral to hospice care.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          These findings describe an all-or-nothing approach to caring for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease in which initiation of dialysis served as a powerful default option with few perceived alternatives. Stronger efforts are needed to develop a more patient-centered approach to caring for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease that is capable of proactively supporting those who do not wish to start dialysis.

          Abstract

          This qualitative analysis uses documentation in the electronic medical records of adults receiving care from the US Veterans Health Administration to describe how decisions not to start dialysis unfold in the clinical setting.

          Key Points

          Question

          How do patient decisions to forgo dialysis unfold in real-world clinical settings?

          Findings

          In a qualitative analysis of the medical record notes of 851 patients with advanced kidney disease who decided to forgo maintenance dialysis, 3 prominent themes emerged: (1) clinicians did not readily accept patients’ wishes not to start dialysis, (2) clinicians decided particular patients were not candidates for dialysis seemingly without consideration of the patients’ goals and values, and (3) clinicians seemed to believe they had little more to offer patients who would not be starting dialysis.

          Meaning

          There is need for more patient-centered models of care for advanced kidney disease capable of supporting those who do not wish to start dialysis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Functional status of elderly adults before and after initiation of dialysis.

          It is unclear whether functional status before dialysis is maintained after the initiation of this therapy in elderly patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Using a national registry of patients undergoing dialysis, which was linked to a national registry of nursing home residents, we identified all 3702 nursing home residents in the United States who were starting treatment with dialysis between June 1998 and October 2000 and for whom at least one measurement of functional status was available before the initiation of dialysis. Functional status was measured by assessing the degree of dependence in seven activities of daily living (on the Minimum Data Set-Activities of Daily Living [MDS-ADL] scale of 0 to 28 points, with higher scores indicating greater functional difficulty). The median MDS-ADL score increased from 12 during the 3 months before the initiation of dialysis to 16 during the 3 months after the initiation of dialysis. Three months after the initiation of dialysis, functional status had been maintained in 39% of nursing home residents, but by 12 months after the initiation of dialysis, 58% had died and predialysis functional status had been maintained in only 13%. In a random-effects model, the initiation of dialysis was associated with a sharp decline in functional status, indicated by an increase of 2.8 points in the MDS-ADL score (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5 to 3.0); this decline was independent of age, sex, race, and functional-status trajectory before the initiation of dialysis. The decline in functional status associated with the initiation of dialysis remained substantial (1.7 points; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.1), even after adjustment for the presence or absence of an accelerated functional decline during the 3-month period before the initiation of dialysis. Among nursing home residents with ESRD, the initiation of dialysis is associated with a substantial and sustained decline in functional status. 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dialysis or not? A comparative survival study of patients over 75 years with chronic kidney disease stage 5.

            The number of elderly patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 5 is steadily increasing. Evidence is needed to inform decision-making for or against dialysis, especially in those patients with multiple comorbid conditions for whom dialysis may not increase survival. We therefore compared survival of elderly patients with CKD stage 5, managed either with dialysis or conservatively (without dialysis), after the management decision had been made, and explored which of several key variables were independently associated with survival. A retrospective analysis of the survival of all over 75 years with CKD stage 5 attending dedicated multidisciplinary pre-dialysis care clinics (n=129) was performed. Demographic and comorbidity data were collected on all patients. Survival was defined as the time from estimated GFR<15 ml/min to either death or study endpoint. One- and two-year survival rates were 84% and 76% in the dialysis group (n=52) and 68% and 47% in the conservative group (n=77), respectively, with significantly different cumulative survival (log rank 13.6, P<0.001). However, this survival advantage was lost in those patients with high comorbidity scores, especially when the comorbidity included ischaemic heart disease. In CKD stage 5 patients over 75 years, who receive specialist nephrological care early, and who follow a planned management pathway, the survival advantage of dialysis is substantially reduced by comorbidity and ischaemic heart disease in particular. Comorbidity should be a major consideration when advising elderly patients for or against dialysis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Survival of elderly patients with stage 5 CKD: comparison of conservative management and renal replacement therapy

              B ackground . Elderly patients with end-stage renal disease and severe extra-renal comorbidity have a poor prognosis on renal replacement therapy (RRT) and may opt to be managed conservatively (CM). Information on the survival of patients on this mode of therapy is limited. Methods. We studied survival in a large cohort of CM patients in comparison to patients who received RRT. Results. Over an 18-year period, we studied 844 patients, 689 (82%) of whom had been treated by RRT and 155 (18%) were CM. CM patients were older and a greater proportion had high comorbidity. Median survival from entry into stage 5 chronic kidney disease was less in CM than in RRT (21.2 vs 67.1 months: P   75 years when corrected for age, high comorbidity and diabetes, the survival advantage from RRT was ~ 4 months, which was not statistically significant. Increasing age, the presence of high comorbidity and the presence of diabetes were independent determinants of poorer survival in RRT patients. In CM patients, however, age > 75 years and female gender independently predicted better survival. Conclusions. In patients aged > 75 years with high extra-renal comorbidity, the survival advantage conferred by RRT over CM is likely to be small. Age > 75 years and female gender predicted better survival in CM patients. The reasons for this are unclear.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Intern Med
                JAMA Intern Med
                JAMA Intern Med
                JAMA Internal Medicine
                American Medical Association
                2168-6106
                2168-6114
                22 January 2019
                March 2019
                22 January 2020
                : 179
                : 3
                : 305-313
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Health Service Research and Development Center, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington
                [2 ]Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle
                [3 ]Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: September 17, 2018.
                Corresponding Author: Susan P. Y. Wong, MD, MS, Health Service Research and Development Center, Renal Dialysis Unit, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, 1660 S Columbian Way, Bldg 100, Seattle, WA 98108 ( spywong@ 123456uw.edu ).
                Published Online: January 22, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6197
                Author Contributions: Dr Wong had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Wong, Hebert, O’Hare.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Wong, McFarland.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Obtained funding: Wong, Liu, Hebert, O’Hare.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Wong, McFarland, Laundry, O’Hare.
                Supervision: Wong.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Wong reported receiving teaching honoraria from VitalTalk in the past 3 years. Dr O’Hare reported receiving speaking honoraria from Fresenius Medical Care, Dialysis Clinics Inc, The Japanese Society for Dialysis and Transplantation, the University of Alabama, and the University of Pennsylvania; receiving an honorarium from UpToDate; and participating in the Health and Aging Policy Fellows Program supported by the John A. Hartford Foundation and West Health and the American Political Science Association’s Congressional Fellowship Program. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This work was supported by grant 1K23DK107799-01A1 from the National Institutes of Health (Dr Wong) and grants IIR 09-094 (Dr Hebert) and IIR 12-126 (Dr O’Hare) from the Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
                Additional Contributions: Christine Sulc, BA, and Whitney Showalter, BA, Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center, assisted with study coordination. They received salary support for their work.
                Article
                PMC6439687 PMC6439687 6439687 ioi180105
                10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6197
                6439687
                30667475
                0a92e94c-7c34-4ceb-a5c5-5dc0b3413453
                Copyright 2019 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
                History
                : 6 July 2018
                : 29 August 2018
                : 17 September 2018
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Sharing Medicine
                Online First

                Comments

                Comment on this article