Impact of phosphate binders on quality of life in dialysis patients: Results from the prospective Dutch nOcturnal and hoME dialysis Study To Improve Clinical Outcomes study.

BACKGROUND: Phosphate binders cause high pill burden for dialysis patients, complicate medication regimens, and have unpleasant taste and large size which may affect patients' quality of life. This study explores the association between phosphate binder pill burden and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in dialysis patients. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional multi-centre cohort study in 21 Dutch dialysis centres. Phosphate binder pill burden was extracted from electronic patient records. Primary outcome was HRQoL measured with the Short Form 12 physical and mental component summary scores (PCS and MCS). Secondary endpoints were severity of gastro-intestinal symptoms, itching, dry mouth, and mental health symptoms, measured with the Dialysis Symptom Index. RESULTS: Of 388 included patients, aged 62 ± 16 years, 77% underwent haemodialysis. PCS scores were comparable for patients with and without phosphate binders. Patients using 1-3 pills reported lower scores for decreased appetite (ß -0.5; 95%CI -0.9 to -0.2), implying better appetite, than patients without phosphate binders. Patients using 4-6 pills also reported lower scores for decreased appetite (ß -0.5; 95%CI -0.8 to -0.1) and for itching (ß -0.5; 95%CI -0.9 to -0.1). Patients using >6 pills reported lower MCS (ß -2.9; 95%CI -6.2-0.4) and higher scores for feeling nervous (ß 0.6; 95%CI 0.1-1.1) and feeling sad (ß 0.4; 95%CI 0.0-0.9). CONCLUSION: Phosphate binder pill burden is not associated with physical quality of life. A higher pill burden is associated with better appetite and less itching. Patients using >6 pills per day report lower mental quality of life and felt nervous and sad more often.

Comorbidity is not associated with dialysis modality choice in patients with end-stage kidney disease.

AIM: Over the past years the proportion of home dialysis patients has decreased in the Netherlands. In addition, the home dialysis use varies significantly among centres. It is unclear whether this is the result of differences in comorbidity, or other factors. Our aim was to investigate the association between comorbidity and dialysis modality choice. METHODS: The multi-centre DOMESTICO cohort study collected comorbidity data of patients who started dialysis in 35 Dutch centres from 2012 to 2016. Comorbidity was assessed by the Charlson comorbidity index. Home dialysis was defined as any peritoneal dialysis or home haemodialysis treatment during follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between comorbidity and dialysis modality, with a mixed model approach to adjust for clustering of patients within dialysis centres. RESULTS: A total of 1358 patients were included, of whom 628 were treated with home dialysis. In crude mixed model analyses, the probability of receiving home dialysis was lower when comorbidity score was higher: having a high comorbidity score resulted in an odds ratio of 0.74 (95% CI 0.54-1.00) when compared with patients without comorbidities. After adjustments for age, sex, ethnic background, body mass index and dialysis vintage, there was no association between comorbidity and home dialysis. CONCLUSION: Comorbidity was not significantly associated with home dialysis choice, after adjustment for several confounding factors including age and body mass index. Future studies should aim at unravelling the centre-specific characteristics that probably play a role in dialysis modality choice.

Value of patient decision aids for shared decision-making in kidney failure.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown how often Dutch patient decision aids are used during kidney failure treatment modality education and what their impact is on shared decision-making. OBJECTIVES: We determined the use of Three Good Questions, 'Overviews of options', and Dutch Kidney Guide by kidney healthcare professionals. Also, we determined patient-experienced shared decision-making. Finally, we determined whether the experience of shared decision-making among patients changed after a training workshop for healthcare professionals. DESIGN: Quality improvement study. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals answered questionnaires regarding education/patient decision aids. Patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate <20 mL/min/1.73 m2 completed shared decision-making questionnaires. Data were analysed with one-way analysis of variance and linear regression. RESULTS: Of 117 healthcare professionals, 56% applied shared decision-making by discussing Three Good Questions (28%), 'Overviews of options' (31%-33%) and Kidney Guide (51%). Of 182 patients, 61%-85% was satisfied with their education. Of worst scoring hospitals regarding shared decision-making, only 50% used 'Overviews of options'/Kidney Guide. Of best scoring hospitals 100% used them, needed less conversations (p = 0.05), provided information about all treatment options and more often provided information at home. After the workshop, patients' shared decision-making scores remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: The use of specifically developed patient decision aids during kidney failure treatment modality education is limited. Hospitals that did use them had higher shared decision-making scores. However, the degree of shared decision-making experienced by patients remained unchanged after healthcare professionals were trained on shared decision-making and the implementation of patient decision aids.

Good practices for dialysis education, treatment, and eHealth: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations regarding dialysis education and treatment are provided in various (inter)national guidelines, which should ensure that these are applied uniformly in nephrology and dialysis centers. However, there is much practice variation which could be explained by good practices: practices developed by local health care professionals, which are not evidence-based. Because an overview of good practices is lacking, we performed a scoping review to identify and summarize the available good practices for dialysis education, treatment, and eHealth. METHODS: Embase, Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL databases and Web of Science were searched for relevant articles using all synonyms for the words 'kidney failure', 'dialysis', and 'good practice'. Relevant articles were structured according to the categories dialysis education, dialysis treatment or eHealth, and assessed for content and results. RESULTS: Nineteen articles (12 for dialysis education, 3 for dialysis treatment, 4 for eHealth) are identified. The good practices for education endorse the importance of providing complete and objective predialysis education, assisting peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients in adequately performing PD, educating hemodialysis (HD) patients on self-management, and talking with dialysis patients about their prognosis. The good practices for dialysis treatment focus mainly on dialysis access devices and general quality improvement of dialysis care. Finally, eHealth is useful for HD and PD and affects both quality of care and health-related quality of life. CONCLUSION: Our scoping review identifies 19 articles describing good practices and their results for dialysis education, dialysis treatment, and eHealth. These good practices could be valuable in addition to guidelines for increasing shared-decision making in predialysis education, using patients' contribution in the implementation of their dialysis treatment, and advanced care planning.