Discussing Conservative Management With Older Patients With CKD: An Interview Study of Nephrologists.

BACKGROUND: Although dialysis may not provide a large survival benefit for older patients with kidney failure, few are informed about conservative management. Barriers and facilitators to discussions about conservative management and nephrologists' decisions to present the option of conservative management may vary within the nephrology provider community. STUDY DESIGN: Interview study of nephrologists. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: National sample of US nephrologists sampled based on sex, years in practice, practice type, and region. METHODOLOGY: Qualitative semistructured interviews continued until thematic saturation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Thematic and narrative analysis of recorded and transcribed interviews. RESULTS: Among 35 semistructured interviews with nephrologists from 18 practices, 37% described routinely discussing conservative management ("early adopters"). 5 themes and related subthemes reflected issues that influence nephrologists' decisions to discuss conservative management and their approaches to these discussions: struggling to define nephrologists' roles (determining treatment, instilling hope, and improving patient symptoms), circumventing end-of-life conversations (contending with prognostic uncertainty, fearing emotional backlash, jeopardizing relationships, and tailoring information), confronting institutional barriers (time constraints, care coordination, incentives for dialysis, and discomfort with varied conservative management approaches), conservative management as "no care," and moral distress. Nephrologists' approaches to conservative management discussions were shaped by perceptions of their roles and by a common view of conservative management as no care. Their willingness to pursue conservative management was influenced by provider- and institutional-level barriers and experiences with older patients who regretted or had been harmed by dialysis (moral distress). Early adopters routinely discussed conservative management as a way of relieving moral distress, whereas others who were more selective in discussing conservative management experienced greater distress. LIMITATIONS: Participants' views are likely most transferable to large academic medical centers, due to oversampling of academic clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings clarify how moral distress serves as a catalyst for conservative management discussion and highlight points of intervention and mechanisms potentially underlying low conservative management use in the United States.

Characterizing Approaches to Dialysis Decision Making with Older Adults: A Qualitative Study of Nephrologists.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite guidelines recommending shared decision making, nephrologists vary significantly in their approaches to discussing conservative management for kidney replacement therapy with older patients. Many older patients do not perceive dialysis initiation as a choice or receive sufficient information about conservative management for reasons incompletely understood. We examined how nephrologists' perceptions of key outcomes and successful versus failed treatment discussions shape their approach and characterized different models of decision making, patient engagement, and conservative management discussion. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Our qualitative study used semistructured interviews with a sample of purposively sampled nephrologists. Interviews were conducted from June 2016 to May 2017 and continued until thematic saturation. Data were analyzed using typological and thematic analyses. RESULTS: Among 35 nephrologists from 18 practices, 20% were women, 66% had at least 10 years of nephrology experience, and 80% were from academic medical centers. Four distinct approaches to decision making emerged: paternalist, informative (patient led), interpretive (navigator), and institutionalist. Five themes characterized differences between these approaches, including patient autonomy, engagement and deliberation (disclosing all options, presenting options neutrally, eliciting patient values, and offering explicit treatment recommendation), influence of institutional norms, importance of clinical outcomes (e.g., survival and dialysis initiation), and physician role (educating patients, making decisions, pursuing active therapies, and managing symptoms). Paternalists and institutionalists viewed initiation of dialysis as a measure of success, whereas interpretive and informative nephrologists focused on patient engagement, quality of life, and aligning patient values with treatment. In this sample, only one third of providers presented conservative management to patients, all of whom followed either informative or interpretive approaches. The interpretive model best achieved shared decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in nephrologists' perceptions of their role, patient autonomy, and successful versus unsuccessful encounters contribute to variation in decision making for patients with kidney disease.