[The contribution of an ethical concertation group in nephrology validated by a research protocol]. / L'apport d'une unité de concertation éthique pour la pratique professionnelle en néphrologie validé par un protocole de recherche.

For more than 10 years, nephrologists in the Grenoble-region have sought advice from the Ethical Concertation Unit in Nephrology with regards to whether to stop or continue dialysis for patients under palliative care. This process deserves a multidisciplinary debate between health professionals and qualified non-health professionals. Thus, we organized a qualitative research protocol in three parts (medical, philosophical, judicial) to explore this issue. Our study aimed to assess the impact of Ethical Concertation Unit in Nephrology's discussions regarding perception, knowledge, and judicial and ethical considerations. The practical repercussions of decision-making within medical practice, its impacts on the patient and his/her family, as well as associated-health professionals, was assessed. To achieve this, two questionnaires and an interview were organized by three Ethical Concertation Unit in Nephrology-leaders to review the viewpoints of the 22 permanent Ethical Concertation Unit in Nephrology members that had participated in 10 Ethical Concertation Unit in Nephrology sessions between 2015 and 2016 to discuss 21 case-reports. Only 13 persons (4 physicians, 6 nurses, 3 non-health professionals) agreed to respond to the questionnaires, and six physicians agreed to participate in an interview. Overall, it was found that most affected patients' physicians agreed with the multidisciplinary discussion, which included judicial and ethical perspectives, and felt reassured with regards to Ethical Concertation Unit in Nephrology's final decision. However, our study showed that Ethical Concertation Unit in Nephrology's functioning could be improved by promoting its existence more widely, by making these decisions earlier within clinical situations, to make Ethical Concertation Unit in Nephrology more accessible to health workers, to make reports easier to understand, to re-examine a posteriori some clinical situations, and to broaden the scope of multidisciplinary skills.

[How to implement a complete apheresis program within a hemodialysis unit]. / Comment mettre en place un plateau technique d'aphérèses.

Many apheresis techniques can be performed in a blood-bank facility or a hemodialysis (HD) facility. However, it makes sense to perform apheresis in a hemodialysis facility as apheresis involves extra-corporeal circuits and because HD can be performed at the same time as apheresis (tandem procedure). Apheresis techniques comprise therapeutic plasma exchange, double-filtration plasmapheresis, and its derivative (rheopheresis and LDL-apheresis), and immunoadsorption (specific and semi-specific). We have setup an apheresis platform in our hospital that fulfills health recommendations. This process has involved financial investment and significant human resources, and has enabled us to network with different specialties (neurology, hematology, vascular medicine). We have setup protocols according to the type of pathology to be treated by apheresis, and to monitor clinical and biological data for each apheresis session. The main side effects of apheresis are a fall in blood pressure when a session is initiated, an increase in fluid overload, hypocalcemia, and the loss of some essential plasmatic factors. However, these side-effects are easily identified and can be properly managed in real time. Within two-years, we have performed 1845 apheresis sessions (134 patients). Of these, 66 received apheresis before and/or after kidney transplantation for ABO and/or HLA incompatibility (desensitization), for humoral rejection, or in the setting of relapsing focal-segmental glomerulosclerosis. Our patients' outcomes have been similar to those reported in the literature. The other 68 patients had various conditions. Because our program is now well-established, we are currently forming a specialist center to train physicians and nurses in the various apheresis techniques/procedures.

Access to and characteristics of palliative care-related hospitalization in the management of end-stage renal disease patients on renal replacement therapy in France.

AIM: Palliative care is seldom proposed to patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) despite a mortality rate and disease burden as high as among cancer patients. The aim of this study is to analyze the access of palliative care-related hospitalization in the management of patients on dialysis in France, by describing the characteristics of these hospitalizations, the clinical status of the concerned patients, and the use of palliative care in those stopping dialysis. METHODS: The French Renal Epidemiology and Information Network (REIN) registry includes data about 51 834 patients aged 20 years and older who began dialysis from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2013, and were followed longitudinally until that date. Linkage to the anonymized national hospital discharge database allowed us to analyse hospitalizations associated with palliative care. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, 1865 patients (3.6%) had a palliative care-related hospitalization corresponding to a total of 3382 hospitalizations. Lower levels of serum albumin, active cancer, and impaired mobility were each independently associated with the probability of at least one such hospitalization. During the same period 4540 patients withdrew from dialysis (9% of the patients), 10% of them had a palliative care-related hospitalization. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that among ESRD patients, only a few resorted to palliative care-related hospitalization, even those withdrawing from dialysis. Cooperation between nephrologists and physicians trained in palliative care should be improved at least to the extent necessary to identify patients who should be referred to palliative care. Our study also highlights the need for more information on the current access to any kind of supportive care for dialysis patients.

Dialysis Withdrawal: Impact and Evaluation of a Multidisciplinary Deliberation Within an Ethics Committee as a Shared-Decision-Making Model.

Since dialysis withdrawal in maintenance dialysis patients with limited life expectancy results always in short-term death, nephrologists need a referenced process to make their decision. This study reviews 8 years of operation of an Ethics Committee in Nephrology (ECN). The ECN, within a multidisciplinary team, once a month explores cases reported by caregivers when maintaining dialysis seems not to be in the patient's best interest. Discussion is required when the vital prognosis is engaged by the evolution of the chronic kidney disease (CKD) or the occurrence of an acute medical event. Data are analyzed using a discussion guide. The informed decision is completed with an appropriated palliative care project involving the patient, and recorded in their file. Since 2006, the ECN has deliberated yearly for 10 sessions on 6-18 cases, concerning 380 identified maintenance dialysis patients. Characteristics of the population, cases, sessions and proposals are recorded and analyzed. The only variable associated with dialysis withdrawal was having at least one new comorbid condition. End of life is supported with the help of the palliative care team in the hospital or exceptionally at home. The ECN, through a multidisciplinary deliberation and resolution process, proposes an ethical shared-decision-making model ensuring that dialysis withdrawal follows professional guidelines, and is registered as a method for evaluating professional practice (EPP). Annual activity reports are submitted to the Hospital's Medical Evaluation and Quality Unit. Benefits are individual and collective for patients, relatives and caregivers. Prospects for reducing non-implemented decisions and identifying cases earlier would improve the Committee effectiveness.

[Ethics consultation unit in nephrology (UCEN): review of 10 years of operation in the Grenoble area]. / Unité de concertation éthique en néphrologie (UCEN) : bilan de fonctionnement à dix ans sur le bassin grenoblois.

The existence of an ethics consultation unit in nephrology (UCEN) gives to the nephrologist the collegiality required to meet the difficulties of therapeutic choice on a legislative level, particularly in indications of stop dialysis. The discussion conducted, outside the emergency, is guided by a tool for reflexion that details successive steps necessary to the identification of elements required for decision-making. Thanks to complementary skills provided by the participants and training acquired, the UCEN can approach other ethic issues encountered during practice such as contrindication for a kidney transplantation or maintenance of conservative treatment, or performing invasive procedures on patients refusing transfusion. Propositions are not always relevant due to opposition or ambivalence of some patients, their relatives, an external or disagreements between teams or a mismatch between the technical and the patient's condition. These non-conformities decrypted always have an explanation, sometimes they are understood and accepted by the teams, and sometimes they became source of regrets when they extend life in very poor conditions. The UCEN, if it does not solve every single point, remains a place and a time of sharing that face difficult situations, help the nephrologist positioning himself on maintaining treatments that were first to avoid and prevent the realization of unreasonable acts and accept their limits.

[The issue of dialysis withdrawal and palliative cares. A 3-year retrospective study carried out at Grenoble university teaching hospital development of a decision-making tool]. / Question de l'arrêt de dialyse et soins palliatifs. Etude rétrospective sur trois ans au centre hospitalier universitaire de Grenoble et élaboration d'un outil d'aide à la décision.

Dialysis-related constraints encourage questioning about discontinuation of treatment. In France, the 04/22/2005 law, related to patients' rights and end-of-life issues, defines bounds to treatment withdrawal, authorizing it in specific conditions, to avoid foolish obstinacy. Shortly before the publication of this law, a study has been conducted at Grenoble University Teaching Hospital, involving 31 patients followed by the dialysis service and the palliative care service, in order to analyse the circumstances in which withdrawals from dialysis happen. These patients were old and their general condition was very poor. After initiation of the questioning, treatment was removed in older patients and in those who had been dialysed for short time, which suggests they may have poor adaption to the treatment. No dialysis withdrawal was ever decided without the patient consent or without his nearest and dearest consent. After multidisciplinary discussions, a decision-making tool for dialysis withdrawal has been developed, with a view to be a starting point in the thinking process, for each decision to be adapted to each situation. This tool emphasizes the importance of time and collegial consultation in the decision-making process. It points out to that the decision lies with the referent nephrologist. After withdrawing dialysis, palliative cares must be implemented, since stopping the treatment does not mean stopping cares.