Work Experiences of the Interdisciplinary Dialysis Workforce in the United States: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Suboptimal dialysis care may be in part due to staff issues such as job dissatisfaction, burnout, work overload, high staff turnover, and inconsistent training. Here, we leveraged data collected in a recent national survey to provide an initial, comprehensive description of current work experiences of US dialysis care providers. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1,240 active US dialysis clinic staff members (physicians, advanced practice providers, nurse managers/clinic coordinators, nurses, social workers, dietitians, and patient care technicians), who were recruited via emails to society membership lists. Respondents were asked about a wide variety of work experiences, including job satisfaction, professional fulfillment, and burnout (Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index), work culture, experiences of hostility and violence, and self-reported medical errors. Responses were summarized overall and compared by clinic role. RESULTS: Most of the survey respondents, representing all 50 US states, were aged 35-49 years (58.3%) or ≥50 years (23.5%), female (60.7%), and white (59.8%; 23.1% black, and 10.0% Asian); 82.1% had been in their current role for at least 1 year. Most US dialysis staff responding to our survey reported being generally satisfied with their jobs (mean rating of 7.9 on 0-10 scale), but only 54.4% met criteria for professional fulfillment, and 32.8% met criteria for burnout, driven by high scores in the work exhaustion domain. Related issues, including high workloads, lack of respect (including experiences of violence and hostility), lack of autonomy, and suboptimal patient environments (in terms of both safety and patient centeredness), were commonly reported among dialysis care providers, although their prevalence often differed by provider type. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the dialysis workforce may be at a critical point. Preventing further staff burnout, which could lead to even greater staffing shortages and worse working conditions among those who continue to provide dialysis care, is essential.

Treating Early-Stage CKD With New Medication Therapies: Results of a CKD Patient Survey Informing the 2020 NKF-FDA Scientific Workshop on Clinical Trial Considerations for Developing Treatments for Early Stages of Common, Chronic Kidney Diseases.

Rationale & Objective: With a growing number of medications and therapies available to treat chronic kidney disease (CKD), risk-versus-benefit discussions are increasingly critical. Balancing risks and benefits requires assessing patients' understanding of these, as well as incorporating patient preferences and tolerance for side effects into shared decision making. Study Design: A 26-question online survey was sent to people in the National Kidney Foundation patient email list and posted on associated social media pages to assess the respondents' willingness and comfort with taking preventative medications during earlier-stage CKD to inform a December 2020 scientific workshop co-sponsored by the National Kidney Foundation and the US Food and Drug Administration on clinical trial considerations in developing treatments for individuals with early stages of CKD. Setting & Population: Online survey of CKD patients, including broad demographic data and responses to risk-benefit scenarios, with surveys emailed to 20,249 people not identified as currently receiving kidney replacement therapy. Analytical Approach: Survey results are presented as descriptive data. Results: Of 1,029 respondents, 45 self-identified as at risk for CKD, 566 had CKD, 267 had received kidney transplants, 51 were receiving dialysis, and 100 replied other or did not answer. Respondents reported being willing to assume some risk with the goal of preventing the progression of CKD, with a greater willingness to assume risk and treatment burdens the closer they came to late-stage disease. Clinician recommendations regarding kidney therapies and clinician willingness to work with patients to address any side effects were important in respondents' willingness to initiate and persevere with a new medication. Limitations: Approximately 10% response rate with limited data on respondents. Conclusions: Risk-versus-benefit discussions appear key to patients and their care partners making well-informed decisions about taking a new medication that may or may not help the progression of their kidney disease. Future tools and strategies are needed to facilitate informed discussions of treatment in early-stage kidney disease.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Patient, Family Member, and Stakeholder Research Engagement: Insights from the PREPARE NOW Study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of COVID-19 on patient, family member, and stakeholder patient-centered outcomes research engagement. OBJECTIVE: To answer the research questions: (1) What is the impact of COVID-19 on the lives of patients with kidney disease and their families? (2) What is the impact of COVID-19 on research engagement for patient and family member research team members who are themselves at very high risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes? and (3) How can we help patients, family members, and stakeholder team members engage in research during COVID-19? DESIGN: We conducted virtual semi-structured interviews with patient and family member co-investigators and kidney disease stakeholders from the PREPARE NOW study during November 2020. The interview guide included questions about participants' experiences with the impact of COVID-19 on research engagement. PARTICIPANTS: Seven patient and family member co-investigators and eight kidney disease stakeholders involved in a kidney disease patient-centered outcomes research project participated in the interviews, data analysis, and writing this manuscript. APPROACH: We used a content analysis approach and identified the main themes using an inductive process. KEY RESULTS: Respondents reported three main ways that COVID-19 has impacted their lives: emotional impact, changing behaviors, and changes in health care delivery. The majority of respondents reported no negative impact of COVID-19 on their ability to engage in this research project. Suggestions for patient-centered outcomes research during COVID-19 and other emergencies include virtual research activities; active engagement; and promoting trust, honesty, transparency, and authenticity. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has had a significant negative impact on patient, family member, and stakeholder research team members; however, this has not resulted in less research engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02722382.

Expanding Utilization of Home Dialysis: An Action Agenda From the First International Home Dialysis Roundtable.

In a groundbreaking meeting, leading global kidney disease organizations came together in the fall of 2020 as an International Home Dialysis Roundtable (IHDR) to address strategies to increase access to and uptake of home dialysis, both peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis. This challenge has become urgent in the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, during which patients with advanced kidney disease, who are more susceptible to viral infections and severe complications, must be able to safely physically distance at home. To boost access to home dialysis on a global scale, IHDR members committed to collaborate, through the COVID-19 public health emergency and beyond, to promote uptake of home dialysis on a broad scale. Their commitments included increasing the reach and influence of key stakeholders with policy makers, building a cooperative of advocates and champions for home dialysis, working together to increase patient engagement and empowerment, and sharing intelligence about policy, education, and other programs so that such efforts can be operationalized globally. In the spirit of international cooperation, IHDR members agreed to document, amplify, and replicate established efforts shown to improve access to home dialysis and support new policies that facilitate access through procedures, innovation, and reimbursement.

Patient Education for Kidney Failure Treatment: A Mixed-Methods Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Education programs are needed for people with advanced chronic kidney disease to understand kidney failure treatment options and participate in shared decision-making (SDM). Little is known about the content and accessibility of current education programs or whether they support SDM. STUDY DESIGN: Stakeholder-engaged, mixed-methods design incorporating qualitative observations and interviews, and a quantitative content analysis of slide presentations. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Four sites located in Boston, Chicago, Portland (Maine), and San Diego. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Thematic analysis based on the Ottawa Framework (observations and interviews) and descriptive statistical analysis (slide presentations). RESULTS: Data were collected from observations of 9 education sessions, 5 semistructured interviews with educators, and 133 educational slide presentations. Sites offered group classes or one-on-one sessions. Development, quality, and accuracy of educational materials varied widely. Educators emphasized dialysis (often in-center hemodialysis), with little mention of conservative management. Educators reported patients were often referred too late to education sessions and that some patients become overwhelmed if they learn of the implications of kidney failure in a group setting. Commonly, sessions were general and did not provide opportunities for tailored information most supportive of SDM. Few nephrologists were involved in education sessions or aware of the educational content. Content gaps included prognosis, decision support, mental health and cognition, advance care planning, cost, and diet. Slide presentations used did not consistently reflect best practices related to health literacy. LIMITATIONS: Findings may not be broadly generalizable. CONCLUSIONS: Education sessions focused on kidney failure treatment options do not consistently follow best practices related to health literacy or for supporting SDM. To facilitate SDM, the establishment of expectations for kidney failure treatment options should be clearly defined and integrated into the clinical workflow. Addressing content gaps, health literacy, and communication with nephrologists is necessary to improve patient education in the setting of advanced chronic kidney disease.