Why are hospitalisations too long? A simple checklist for identifying the main social barriers to hospital discharge from a nephrology ward.

The present increase in life span has been accompanied by an even higher increase in the burden of comorbidity. The challenges to healthcare systems are enormous and performance measures have been introduced to make the provision of healthcare more cost-efficient. Performance of hospitalisation is basically defined by the relationship between hospital stay, use of hospital resources, and main diagnosis/diagnoses and complication(s), adjusted for case mix. These factors, combined in different indexes, are compared with the performance of similar hospitals in the same and other countries. The reasons why an approach like this is being employed are clear.Cutting costs cannot be the only criteria, in particular in elderly, high-comorbidity patients: in this population, although social issues are important determinants of hospital stay, they are rarely taken into account or quantified in evaluations. Quantifying the impact of the "social barriers" to care can serve as a marker of the overall quality of treatment a network provides, and point to specific out-of-hospital needs, necessary to improve in-hospital performance. We therefore propose a simple, empiric medico-social checklist that can be used in nephrology wards to assess the presence of social barriers to hospital discharge and quantify their weight.Using the checklist should allow: identifying patients with social frailty that could complicate hospitalisation and/or discharge; evaluating the social needs of patient and entourage at the beginning of hospitalisation, adopting timely procedures, within the partnership with out-of-hospital teams; facilitating prioritization of interventions by social workers.The following ten items were empirically identified: reason for hospitalisation; hospitalisation in relation to the caregiver's problems; recurrent unplanned hospitalisations or early re-hospitalisation; social/family isolation; presence of a dependent relative in the patient's household; lack of housing or unsuitable housing/accommodation; loss of autonomy; lack of economic resources; lack of a safe environment; evidence of physical or psychological abuse.The simple tool here described needs validation; the present proposal is aimed at raising attention on the importance of non-medical issues in medical organisation in our specialty, and is open to discussion, to allow its refinement.

Incremental and Personalized Hemodialysis Start: A New Standard of Care.

Introduction: Incremental hemodialysis (iHD) may attenuate "dialysis shock" and reduce costs, preserving quality of life. It is considered difficult to reconcile with HD wards' routine; fear of underdialysis and increasing mortality are additional concerns. The aim of this study was to evaluate mortality, morbidity, and costs in a large HD ward where iHD is the standard of HD start. Methods: This observational study included all incident HD patients in 2017 to 2021, stratified according to HD start: iHD (1-2 sessions/wk), decremental HD (dHD, 3 sessions/wk at start, later reduced), or standard (3 sessions/wk). Results were compared with data recorded in the same unit before the incremental program (2015-2017) and with a propensity score-matched cohort from the French Renal Epidemiology and Information Network (REIN) registry. Results: A total of 158 patients started HD in 2017 to 2021, 57.6% on iHD, 8.9% dHD, and 33.5% standard HD schedule. Patients on the standard schedule had lower initial estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (5 vs. 7 ml/min per 1.72 m2, P = 0.003). We found no survival differences according to period of start (same center) and propensity score matching (REIN). Patients intensively followed in the pre-HD period were more likely to start on iHD-dHD. Persistence on iHD-dHD was about 50% at 1 year and 35% at 2 years. Hospitalization rates and time to first hospitalization or death did not differ between the schedules. The iHD-dHD policy allowed a 16% cost saving, even accounting for supplemental biochemical tests. Conclusion: Our study reveals that iHD can be a new standard of care, as it is safe and feasible in up to two-thirds of patients on incident HD.

Elderly Patients in a Large Nephrology Unit: Who Are Our Old, Old-Old and Oldest-Old Patients?

The world population is aging, and the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasing. Whether this increase is also due to the methods currently being used to assess kidney function in the elderly is still a matter of discussion. We aimed to describe the actual referral pattern of CKD patients in a large nephrology unit and test whether the use of different formulae to estimate kidney function could affect the staging and the need for specialist care in the older subset of our population. In 2019, 1992 patients were referred to our center. Almost 28% of the patients were aged ≥80 and about 6% were ≥90 years old. Among the causes of kidney disease, glomerulonephritis displayed a higher prevalence in younger patients whereas hypertensive or diabetic kidney disease were more prevalent in older patients. The prevalence of referred patients in advanced CKD stages increased with age; estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decreased with age regardless of which equation was used (chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration (CKD-EPI), Lund-Malmö Revised (LMR), modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD), Full Age Spectrum (FAS), or Berlin Initiative Study 1 (BIS)). With CKD-EPI as a reference, MDRD and FAS underestimated the CKD stage while LMR overestimated it. The BIS showed the highest heterogeneity. Considering an eGFR threshold limit of 45 mL/min for defining "significant" CKD in patients over 65 years of age, the variability in CKD staging was 10% no matter which equation was used. Our study quantified the weight of "old" and "old-old" patients on follow-up in a large nephrology outpatient unit and suggested that with the current referral pattern, the type of formula used does not affect the need for CKD care within the context of a relatively late referral, particularly in elderly patients.

Unmet needs for CKD care: from the general population to the CKD clinics-how many patients are we missing?

INTRODUCTION: Prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) varies around the world. Little is known about the discrepancy between the general population's needs and nephrology care offered. We aimed to contribute to filling this gap and propose a means to infer the number of patients needing follow-up. METHODS: All patients undergoing at least one nephrology consultation in 2019 were enrolled. We used the ratio between CKD Stages 3 and 4 reported in the literature, and considered that only 25-50% of CKD Stage 3 patients have progressive CKD, to hypothesize different scenarios to estimate the number of CKD Stage 3 patients still needing nephrology follow-up. RESULTS: The 1992 CKD patients were followed-up in our centre (56.93% males; age 66.71 ± 18.32 years; 16.82% Stage 1; 14.66% Stage 2; 39.46% Stage 3; 19.88% Stage 4; 7.68% Stage 5). The ratio between Stages 3 and 4 in population studies ranged from 7.72 to 51.29, being 1.98 in our centre. Hypothesizing that we followed-up 100, 70 or 50% of CKD Stage 4 patients, 528-2506 CKD Stage 3 patients in our area would need nephrology follow-up [1885-8946 per million population (p.m.p.)]. Three to 17 additional nephrologists p.m.p. would be necessary to fully cover the need for care. CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients with CKD Stage 3 who would benefit from nephrology care is high. Considering that one patient-year of delay of dialysis could cover a nephrologist's annual salary, interventions aimed to improve the care of advanced CKD may be economically sound.

Dialysis Reimbursement: What Impact Do Different Models Have on Clinical Choices?

Allowing patients to live for decades without the function of a vital organ is a medical miracle, but one that is not without cost both in terms of morbidity and quality of life and in economic terms. Renal replacement therapy (RRT) consumes between 2% and 5% of the overall health care expenditure in countries where dialysis is available without restrictions. While transplantation is the preferred treatment in patients without contraindications, old age and comorbidity limit its indications, and low organ availability may result in long waiting times. As a consequence, 30⁻70% of the patients depend on dialysis, which remains the main determinant of the cost of RRT. Costs of dialysis are differently defined, and its reimbursement follows different rules. There are three main ways of establishing dialysis reimbursement. The first involves dividing dialysis into a series of elements and reimbursing each one separately (dialysis itself, medications, drugs, transportation, hospitalisation, etc.). The second, known as the capitation system, consists of merging these elements in a per capita reimbursement, while the third, usually called the bundle system, entails identifying a core of procedures intrinsically linked to treatment (e.g., dialysis sessions, tests, intradialyitc drugs). Each one has advantages and drawbacks, and impacts differently on the organization and delivery of care: payment per session may favour fragmentation and make a global appraisal difficult; a correct capitation system needs a careful correction for comorbidity, and may exacerbate competition between public and private settings, the latter aiming at selecting the least complex cases; a bundle system, in which the main elements linked to the dialysis sessions are considered together, may be a good compromise but risks penalising complex patients, and requires a rapid adaptation to treatment changes. Retarding dialysis is a clinical and economical goal, but the incentives for predialysis care are not established and its development may be unfavourable for the provider. A closer cooperation between policymakers, economists and nephrologists is needed to ensure a high quality of dialysis care.

Where Are You Going, Nephrology? Considerations on Models of Care in an Evolving Discipline.

Nephrology is a complex discipline, including care of kidney disease, dialysis, and transplantation. While in Europe, about 1:10 individuals is affected by chronic kidney disease (CKD), 1:1000 lives thanks to dialysis or transplantation, whose costs are as high as 2% of all the health care budget. Nephrology has important links with surgery, bioethics, cardiovascular and internal medicine, and is, not surprisingly, in a delicate balance between specialization and comprehensiveness, development and consolidation, cost constraints, and competition with internal medicine and other specialties. This paper proposes an interpretation of the different systems of nephrology care summarising the present choices into three not mutually exclusive main models ("scientific", "pragmatic", "holistic", or "comprehensive"), and hypothesizing an "ideal-utopic" prevention-based fourth one. The so-called scientific model is built around kidney transplantation and care of glomerulonephritis and immunologic diseases, which probably pose the most important challenges in our discipline, but do not mirror the most common clinical problems. Conversely, the pragmatic one is built around dialysis (the most expensive and frequent mode of renal replacement therapy) and pre-dialysis treatment, focusing attention on the most common diseases, the holistic, or comprehensive, model comprehends both, and is integrated by several subspecialties, such as interventional nephrology, obstetric nephrology, and the ideal-utopic one is based upon prevention, and early care of common diseases. Each model has strength and weakness, which are commented to enhance discussion on the crucial issue of the philosophy of care behind its practical organization. Increased reflection and research on models of nephrology care is urgently needed if we wish to rise to the challenge of providing earlier and better care for older and more complex kidney patients with acute and chronic kidney diseases, with reduced budgets.