Development of a person-centered interdisciplinary plan-of-care program for dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis care often focuses on outcomes that are of lesser importance to patients than to clinicians. There is growing international interest in individualizing care based on patient priorities, but evidence-based approaches are lacking. The objective of this study was to develop a person-centered dialysis care planning program. To achieve this objective we performed qualitative interviews, responsively developed a novel care planning program and then assessed program content and burden. METHODS: We conducted 25 concept elicitation interviews with US hemodialysis patients, care partners and care providers, using thematic analysis to analyze transcripts. Interview findings and interdisciplinary stakeholder panel input informed the development of a new care planning program, My Dialysis Plan. We then conducted 19 cognitive debriefing interviews with patients, care partners and care providers to assess the program's content and face validities, comprehensibility and burden. RESULTS: We identified five themes in concept elicitation interviews: feeling boxed in by the system, navigating dual lives, acknowledging an evolving identity, respecting the individual as a whole person and increasing individualization to enhance care. We then developed a person-centered care planning program and supporting materials that underwent 32 stakeholder-informed iterations. Data from subsequent cognitive interviews led to program revisions intended to improve contextualization and understanding, decrease burden and facilitate implementation. CONCLUSIONS: My Dialysis Plan is a content-valid, person-centered dialysis care planning program that aims to promote care individualization. Investigation of the program's capacity to improve patient experiences and outcomes is needed.

Development and content validity of a hemodialysis symptom patient-reported outcome measure.

PURPOSE: To describe the process and preliminary qualitative development of a new symptom-based patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) intended to assess hemodialysis treatment-related physical symptoms. METHODS: Experienced interviewers conducted concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews with individuals receiving in-center hemodialysis in the United States. Concept elicitation interviews involved eliciting spontaneous reports of symptom experiences and probing to further explore and confirm concepts. We used patient-reported concepts to generate a preliminary symptom PROM. We conducted 3 rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews to evaluate symptom relevance, item interpretability, and draft item structure. We iteratively refined the measure based on cognitive interview findings. RESULTS: Forty-two adults receiving in-center hemodialysis participated in the concept elicitation interviews. A total of 12 symptoms were reported by > 10% of interviewees. We developed a 13-item initial draft instrument for testing in 3 rounds of cognitive interviews with an additional 52 hemodialysis patients. Participant responses and feedback during cognitive interviews led to changes in symptom descriptions, division of the single item "nausea/vomiting" into 2 distinct items, removal of daily activity interference items, addition of instructions, and clarification about the recall period, among other changes. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom Monitoring on Renal Replacement Therapy-Hemodialysis (SMaRRT-HD™) is a 14-item PROM intended for use in hemodialysis patents. SMaRRT-HD™ uses a single treatment recall period and a 5-point Likert scale to assess symptom severity. Qualitative interview data provide evidence of its content validity. SMaRRT-HD™ is undergoing additional testing to assess measurement properties and inform measure scoring.

Perspectives on Research Participation and Facilitation Among Dialysis Patients, Clinic Personnel, and Medical Providers: A Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Most prospective studies involving individuals receiving maintenance dialysis have been small, and many have had poor clinical translatability. Research relevance can be enhanced through stakeholder engagement. However, little is known about dialysis clinic stakeholders' perceptions of research participation and facilitation. The objective of this study was to characterize the perspectives of dialysis clinic stakeholders (patients, clinic personnel, and medical providers) on: (1) research participation by patients and (2) research facilitation by clinic personnel and medical providers. We also sought to elucidate stakeholder preferences for research communication. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 7 focus groups (59 participants: 8 clinic managers, 14 nurses/patient care technicians, 8 social workers/dietitians, 11 nephrologists/advanced practice providers, and 18 patients/care partners) from 7 North Carolina dialysis clinics. METHODOLOGY: Clinics and participants were purposively sampled. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Thematic analysis. RESULTS: We identified 11 themes that captured barriers to and facilitators of research participation by patients and research facilitation by clinic personnel and medical providers. We collapsed these themes into 4 categories to create an organizational framework for considering stakeholder (narrow research understanding, competing personal priorities, and low patient literacy and education levels), relationship (trust, buy-in, and altruistic motivations), research design (convenience, follow-up, and patient incentives), and dialysis clinic (professional demands, teamwork, and communication) aspects that may affect stakeholder interest in participating in or facilitating research. These themes appear to shape the degree of research readiness of a dialysis clinic environment. Participants preferred short research communications delivered in multiple formats. LIMITATIONS: Potential selection bias and inclusion of English-speaking participants only. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings revealed patient interest in participating in research and clinical personnel and medical provider interest in facilitating research. Overall, our results suggest that dialysis clinic research readiness may be enhanced through increased stakeholder research knowledge and alignment of clinical and research activities.

Perspectives on symptom experiences and symptom reporting among individuals on hemodialysis.

Background: Individuals on hemodialysis bear substantial symptom burdens, but providers often underappreciate patient symptoms. In general, standardized, patient-reported symptom data are not captured during routine dialysis care. We undertook this study to better understand patient experiences with symptoms and symptom reporting. In exploratory interviews, we sought to describe hemodialysis nurse and patient care technician perspectives on symptoms and symptom reporting. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 42 US hemodialysis patients and 13 hemodialysis clinic personnel. Interviews were conducted between February and October 2017 and were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Seven themes were identified in patient interviews: (i) symptoms engendering symptoms, (ii) resignation that life is dependent on a machine, (iii) experiencing the life intrusiveness of dialysis, (iv) developing adaptive coping strategies, (v) creating a personal symptom narrative, (vi) negotiating loss of control and (vii) encountering the limits of the dialysis delivery system. Overall, patient symptom experiences and perceptions appeared to influence symptom-reporting tendencies, leading some patients to communicate proactively about symptoms, but others to endure silently all but the most severe symptoms. Three themes were identified in exploratory clinic personnel interviews: (i) searching for symptom explanations, (ii) facing the limits of their roles and (iii) encountering the limits of the dialysis delivery system. In contrast to patients, clinic personnel generally believed that most patients were inclined to spontaneously report their symptoms to providers. Conclusions: Interviews with patients and dialysis clinic personnel suggest that symptom reporting is highly variable and likely influenced by many personal, treatment and environmental factors.

A Person-Centered Interdisciplinary Plan-of-Care Program for Dialysis: Implementation and Preliminary Testing.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Despite growing interest in individualizing care, routine dialysis processes, including the interdisciplinary plan of care, often fail to account for patient-identified priorities. To better align dialysis care with patient priorities and improve care planning experiences, we implemented a person-centered care plan program at a single clinic. We also sought to gain insight into key implementation considerations and areas for program improvement. STUDY DESIGN: 6-month quality improvement project with research substudy. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 49 hemodialysis patients and 14 care team members at a North Carolina dialysis clinic. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES: Implementation of My Dialysis Plan, a person-centered care plan program. OUTCOMES: Participant perspectives and care plan meeting characteristics (quality improvement); pre- to postprogram change in patient-reported autonomy support, patient-centeredness of care, and dialysis care individualization (research). ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to guide implementation and evaluation. We conducted pre-, intra-, and post-project interviews with clinic stakeholders (patients, clinic personnel, and medical providers) to identify implementation barriers, facilitators, and perceptions. We compared pre- and post-project care plan meeting content and patient-reported outcome survey scores. RESULTS: We conducted 54 care plans with 49 patients. Overall, care teams successfully used My Dialysis Plan to elicit and link patient priorities to actionable aspects of dialysis care. Participants identified interdisciplinary team commitment, accountability, and the structured yet flexible meeting approach as key implementation elements. Throughout the project, stakeholder input guided program modifications (eg, implementation practices and resources) to better meet clinic needs, but follow-up on care plan-identified action items remained challenging. Among the 28 substudy participants, there was no difference in pre- to post-project patient-reported outcome survey scores. LIMITATIONS: Single clinic implementation. CONCLUSIONS: My Dialysis Plan has the potential to enhance dialysis care individualization and care plan experiences. Evaluation of program impact on patient-reported and clinical outcomes is needed.

Stakeholder-Guided Development of Dialysis Vascular Access Education Materials.

Background: Initiating hemodialysis via an arteriovenous (AV) access is considered best practice for most patients. Despite the well-recognized advantages of AV access, 80% of US patients start hemodialysis with a catheter. Limited patient knowledge about vascular access, among other factors, may play a role in this high rate. We used iterative stakeholder input to develop novel, mixed media vascular access education materials and evaluated their preliminary acceptability. Methods: We conducted preliminary focus groups and interviews with key stakeholders to assess patient vascular access understanding and elicit perspectives on existing education materials. We then used stakeholder input to inform initial development and iterative updates to the content and design of an animated video and complementary brochure. Video development (scripting, storyboarding, animation) was guided by an evidence-based framework and two health behavior change models. We assessed acceptability of the completed materials with patients and medical providers/personnel via interviews. Results: Overall, 105 stakeholders participated in education materials development and review (80 patients/care partners, 25 medical providers/personnel). Preliminary qualitative work included 52 patients/care partners and 16 providers/personnel; video development included 28 patients/care partners and nine providers/personnel. The video script, storyboards, and animation underwent 14, four, and nine stakeholder-guided iterations, respectively. Responsive changes included aesthetic modifications, technical updates, and content additions (e.g., HD circuit, access self-monitoring, enhanced patient testimonials). The final 18-minute video and complementary brochure define vascular access types, describe care processes, outline potential complications, and address common patient concerns. Interviews with 28 patients/care partners and nine providers/personnel from diverse geographic regions revealed preliminary acceptability of, and enthusiasm for, the materials by patients and providers. Conclusions: In collaboration with key stakeholders, we developed mixed media vascular access education materials that were well-received by patients and providers. Preliminary findings suggest that the materials are promising to improve vascular access understanding among patients.

Feasibility of Tablet-Based Patient-Reported Symptom Data Collection Among Hemodialysis Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals receiving in-center hemodialysis have high symptom burdens but often do not report their symptoms to care teams. Evidence from other diseases suggest that use of symptom electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) may improve outcomes. We assessed the usability of a symptom ePROM system and then implemented a quality improvement (QI) project with the objective of improving symptom communication at a US hemodialysis clinic. During the project, we assessed the feasibility of ePROM implementation and conducted a substudy exploring the effect of ePROM use on patient-centered care. METHODS: After conducting usability testing, we used mixed methods, guided by the Quality Implementation Framework, to implement a 16-week symptom ePROM QI project. We performed pre-, intra-, and postproject stakeholder interviews to identify implementation barriers and facilitators. We collected ePROM system-generated data on symptoms, e-mail alerts, and response rates, among other factors, to inform our feasibility assessment. We compared pre- and postproject outcomes. RESULTS: There were 62 patient participants (34% black, 16% Spanish-speaking) and 19 care team participants (4 physicians, 15 clinic personnel) at QI project start, and 32 research participants. In total, the symptom ePROM was administered 496 times (completion rate = 84%). The implementation approach and ePROM system were modified to address stakeholder-identified concerns throughout. ePROM implementation was feasible as demonstrated by the program's acceptability, demand, implementation success, practicality, integration in care, and observed trend toward improved outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom ePROM administration during hemodialysis is feasible. Trials investigating the effectiveness of symptom ePROMs and optimal administration strategies are needed.