Shared decision-making in hemodialysis vascular access practice.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process of collaborative deliberation in the dyadic patient-physician interaction whereby physicians inform the patients about the pros and cons of all available treatment options and reach an agreement with the patients on their preferred treatment plan. In hemodialysis vascular access practice, SDM advocates a deliberative approach based on the existence of reasonable alternatives-that is, arteriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, and central venous catheter-so that patients are able to form and share preferences about access options. In spite of its ethical imperative, SDM is not broadly applied in hemodialysis vascular access planning. Physicians and surgeons commonly deliver prescriptive fistula-centered recommendations concerning the approach to vascular access care. This paternalistic approach has been shaped by directions from long-held clinical practice guidelines and is reinforced by financial payment models linked with the prevalence of arteriovenous fistula in patients on hemodialysis. Awareness is growing that what may have initially seemed a medically and surgically appropriate approach might not always be focused on each individual's goals of care. Clinician's recommendations for vascular access often do not sufficiently consider the uncertainty surrounding the potential benefits of the decision or the cumulative impact of the decision on patient's quality of life. In the evolving health care landscape, it is time for the practice of hemodialysis vascular access to shift from a hierarchical doctor-patient approach to patient-centered care. In this article we review the current state of vascular access practice, present arguments why SDM is necessary in vascular access planning, review barriers and potential solutions to SDM implementation, and discuss future research contingent on an effective system of physician-patient participative decision-making in hemodialysis vascular access practice.

Risky Behavior: Hospital Transfers Associated with Early Mortality and Rates of Goals of Care Discussions.

INTRODUCTION: Inter-hospital transfer (IHT) patients have higher in-hospital mortality, higher healthcare costs, and worse outcomes compared to non-transferred patients. Goals of care (GoC) discussions prior to transfer are necessary in patients at high risk for decline to ensure that the intended outcome of transfer is goal concordant. However, the frequency of these discussions is not well understood. This study was intended to assess the prevalence of GoC discussions in IHT patients with early mortality, defined as death within 72 hours of transfer, and prevalence of primary diagnoses associated with in-hospital mortality. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of IHT patients aged 18 and older who died within 72 hours of transfer to Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center between October 1, 2016-October 2018. Documentation of GoC discussions within the electronic health record (EHR) prior to transfer was the primary outcome. We also assessed charts for primary diagnosis associated with in-hospital mortality, code status changes prior to death, in-hospital healthcare interventions, and frequency of palliative care consults. RESULTS: We included in this study a total of 298 patients, of whom only 10.1% had documented GoC discussion prior to transfer. Sepsis (29.9%), respiratory failure (28.2%), and cardiac arrest (27.5%) were the top three diagnoses associated with in-hospital mortality, and 73.2% of the patients transitioned to comfort measures prior to death. After transfer, 18.1% of patients had invasive procedures performed with 9.7% undergoing major surgery. Palliative care consultation occurred in only 4.4%. CONCLUSION: The majority (89.9%) of IHT patients with early mortality did not have GoC discussion documented within EHR prior to transfer, although most transitioned to comfort measures prior to their deaths, highlighting that additional work is needed in this area.