Outcomes as experienced by older patients after hospitalisation: satisfaction, acceptance, frustration and hope-a grounded theory study.

BACKGROUND: outcomes of hospitalisation are often described in quantitative terms. It is unknown how older frail patients describe their own outcomes. OBJECTIVE: to discover how older frail persons describe their own hospitalisation outcomes and the meaning of these outcomes for their daily lives. DESIGN: Constructivist Grounded Theory approach. PARTICIPANTS: frail older people discharged from hospital. METHODS: Open interviews in the participant's home. Transcripts were coded inductively according to the Constructivist Grounded Theory approach. RESULTS: Twenty-four interviews were conducted involving 20 unique participants. Although for some participants hospitalisation was just a ripple, for others, it was a turning point. It could have positive or negative impacts on outcomes, including remaining alive, disease, fatigue/condition, complaints, daily functioning, social activities and intimate relationships, hobbies, living situation and mental well-being. Few participants were completely satisfied, but for many, a discrepancy between expectation and reality existed. Some participants could accept this, others remained hopeful and some were frustrated. Factors associated with these categories were research and treatment options, (un)clarity about the situation, setting the bar too high or pushing boundaries, confidence in physicians, character traits and social factors. CONCLUSIONS: of the persons whose outcomes did not meet their expectations, some were frustrated, others hopeful and others accepted the situation. The following interventions can help patients to accept: clear communication about options and expectations before, during and after hospitalisation; giving room for emotions; help finding social support, encouragement to engage in pleasant activities and find meaning in small things. For some patients, psychological treatment may be needed.

Adaptation of the Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients: development, reliability and validity of the P-BAS picture version.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients (P-BAS HOP) is a tool developed to both identify the priorities of the individual patient and to measure the outcomes relevant to him/her, resulting in a Patient Benefit Index (PBI), indicating how much benefit the patient had experienced from the hospitalisation. The reliability and the validity of the P-BAS HOP appeared to be not yet satisfactory and therefore the aims of this study were to adapt the P-BAS HOP and transform it into a picture version, resulting in the P-BAS-P, and to evaluate its feasibility, reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretability. METHODS: Process of instrument development and evaluation performed among hospitalised older patients including pilot tests using Three-Step Test-Interviews (TSTI), test-retest reliability on baseline and follow-up, comparing the PBI with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), and hypothesis testing to evaluate the construct validity. Responsiveness of individual P-BAS-P scores and the PBI with two different weighing schemes were evaluated using anchor questions. Interpretability of the PBI was evaluated with the visual anchor-based minimal important change (MIC) distribution method and computation of smallest detectable change (SDC) based on ICC. RESULTS: Fourteen hospitalised older patients participated in TSTIs at baseline and 13 at follow-up after discharge. After several adaptations, the P-BAS-P appeared feasible with good interviewer's instructions. The pictures were considered relevant and helpful by the participants. Reliability was tested with 41 participants at baseline and 50 at follow-up. ICC between PBI1 and PBI2 of baseline test and retest was 0.76, respectively 0.73. At follow-up 0.86, respectively 0.85. For the construct validity, tested in 169 participants, hypotheses regarding importance of goals were confirmed. Regarding status of goals, only the follow-up status was confirmed, baseline and change were not. The responsiveness of the individual scores and PBI were weak, resulting in poor interpretability with many misclassifications. The SDC was larger than the MIC. CONCLUSIONS: The P-BAS-P appeared to be a feasible instrument, but there were methodological barriers for the evaluation of the reliability, validity, and responsiveness. We therefore recommend further research into the P-BAS-P.

Reliability and validity of the Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients (P-BAS HOP).

BACKGROUND: The Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients (P-BAS HOP) is a tool which is capable of both identifying the priorities of the individual patient and measuring the outcomes relevant to him/her, resulting in a Patient Benefit Index (PBI) with range 0-3, indicating how much benefit the patient had experienced from the admission. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretability of the P-BAS HOP. METHODS: A longitudinal study among hospitalised older patients with a baseline interview during hospitalisation and a follow-up by telephone 3 months after discharge. Test-retest reliability of the baseline and follow-up questionnaire were tested. Percentage of agreement, Cohen's kappa with quadratic weighting and maximum attainable kappa were calculated per item. The PBI was calculated for both test and retest of baseline and follow-up and compared with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Construct validity was tested by evaluating pre-defined hypotheses comparing the priority of goals with experienced symptoms or limitations at admission and the achievement of goals with progression or deterioration of other constructs. Responsiveness was evaluated by correlating the PBI with the anchor question 'How much did you benefit from the admission?'. This question was also used to evaluate the interpretability of the PBI with the visual anchor-based minimal important change distribution method. RESULTS: Reliability was tested with 53 participants at baseline and 72 at follow-up. Mean weighted kappa of the baseline items was 0.38. ICC between PBI of the test and retest was 0.77. Mean weighted kappa of the follow-up items was 0.51. ICC between PBI of the test and retest was 0.62. For the construct validity, tested in 451 participants, all baseline hypotheses were confirmed. From the follow-up hypotheses, tested in 344 participants, five of seven were confirmed. The Spearman's correlation coefficient between the PBI and the anchor question was 0.51. The optimal cut-off point was 0.7 for 'no important benefit' and 1.4 points for 'important benefit' on the PBI. CONCLUSIONS: Although the concept seems promising, the reliability and validity of the P-BAS HOP appeared to be not yet satisfactory. We therefore recommend adapting the P-BAS HOP.

Use of dementia care mapping in the care for older people with intellectual disabilities: A mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: The ageing of people with intellectual disabilities, with associated morbidity like dementia, calls for new types of care. Person-centred methods may support care staff in providing this, an example being Dementia Care Mapping (DCM). DCM has been shown to be feasible in ID-care. We examined the experiences of ID-professionals in using DCM. METHODS: We performed a mixed-methods study, using quantitative data from care staff (N = 136) and qualitative data (focus-groups, individual interviews) from care staff, group home managers and DCM-in-intellectual disabilities mappers (N = 53). RESULTS: DCM provided new insights into the behaviours of clients, enabled professional reflection and gave new knowledge and skills regarding dementia and person-centred care. Appreciation of DCM further increased after the second cycle of application. CONCLUSION: DCM is perceived as valuable in ID-care. Further assessment is needed of its effectiveness in ID-care with respect to quality of care, staff-client interactions and job performance.

Effects of Dementia Care Mapping on well-being and quality of life of older people with intellectual disability: A quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: The ageing of people with intellectual disability, accompanied with consequences like dementia, challenges intellectual disability-care staff and creates a need for supporting methods, with Dementia Care Mapping (DCM) as a promising possibility. This study examined the effect of DCM on the quality of life of older people with intellectual disability. METHODS: We performed a quasi-experimental study in 23 group homes for older people with intellectual disability in the Netherlands, comparing DCM (n = 113) with care-as-usual (CAU; n = 111). Using three measures, we assessed the staff-reported quality of life of older people with intellectual disability. RESULTS: DCM achieved no significantly better or worse quality of life than CAU. Effect sizes varied from 0.01 to -0.22. Adjustments for covariates and restriction of analyses to people with dementia yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: The finding that DCM does not increase quality of life of older people with intellectual disability contradicts previous findings and deserves further study.

Effects of Dementia Care Mapping on job satisfaction and caring skills of staff caring for older people with intellectual disabilities: A quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: The ageing of people with intellectual disabilities, involving consequences like dementia, creates a need for methods to support care staff. One promising method is Dementia Care Mapping (DCM). This study examined the effect of DCM on job satisfaction and care skills of ID-care staff. METHODS: We performed a quasi-experimental study in 23 group homes for older people with intellectual disabilities in the Netherlands. Among staff, we assessed job satisfaction and care skills as primary outcomes and work experience measures as secondary outcomes (N = 227). RESULTS: Dementia Care Mapping achieved no significantly better effect than care as usual (CAU) for primary outcomes on job satisfaction (MWSS-HC) and working skills (P-CAT). Effect sizes varied from -0.18 to -0.66. We also found no differences for any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Dementia Care Mapping does not increase job satisfaction and care skills of staff caring for older people with intellectual disabilities. This result differs from previous findings and deserves further study.

The decision-making process for unplanned admission to hospital unveiled in hospitalised older adults: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The hazards of hospitalisation, and the growing demand for goal-oriented care and shared decision making, increasingly question whether hospitalisation always aligns with the preferences and needs of older adults. Although decision models are described comprehensively in the literature, little is understood about how the decision for hospitalisation is made in real life situations, especially under acute conditions. The aim of this qualitative study was to gain insight into how the decision to hospitalise was made from the perspective of the older patient who was unplanned admitted to hospital. METHODS: Open interviews were conducted with 21 older hospitalised patients and/or their next of kin about the decision-making process leading to hospitalisation. Data were analysed according to the Constructivist Grounded Theory approach. RESULTS: Although a period of complaints preceded the decision to unplanned hospitalisation, ranging from hours to years, the decision to hospitalise was always taken acutely. In all cases, there was an acute moment in which the home as a care environment was no longer considered adequate. This conclusion was based on a combination of factors including factors related to complaints, general practitioner and home environment. Three parties were involved in this assessment: the patient, his next of kin and the general practitioner. At the same time, a very positive value was attributed towards the hospital. Depending on the assessment of the home as care environment by the various parties, there were four routes to hospitalisation: referral, shared, demanding and bypassing. CONCLUSIONS: For all participants, the decision to hospitalisation was taken acutely, even if the problems evoking admission were not acute, but present for a longer period. Participants saw admission as inevitable, due to the negative perceptions of the care environment at home at that moment, combined with the positive expectations of hospital care. Advance care planning, nor shared decision making were rarely seen in these interviews. An ethical dilemma occurred when the next of kin consented to hospitalisation against the wishes of the patient. More attention for participation of older adults in decision making and their goals is recommended.

The first use of dementia care mapping in the care for older people with intellectual disability: a process analysis according to the RE-AIM framework.

INTRODUCTION: The aging of the population with intellectual disability (ID), with associated conseqences as dementia, creates a need for evidence-based methods to support staff. Dementia Care Mapping (DCM) is perceived to be valuable in dementia care and promising in ID-care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the process of the first use of DCM in ID-care. METHODS: DCM was used among older people with ID and care-staff in 12 group homes of six organisations. We obtained data on the first use of DCM in ID-care via focus-group discussions and face-to-face interviews with: care-staff (N = 24), managers (N = 10), behavioural specialists (N = 7), DCM-ID mappers (N = 12), and DCM-trainers (N = 2). We used the RE-AIM framework for a thematic process-analysis. RESULTS: All available staff (94%) participated in DCM (reach). Regarding its efficacy, staff considered DCM valuable; it provided them new knowledge and skills. Participants intended to adopt DCM, by continuing and expanding its use in their organisations. DCM was implemented as intended, and strictly monitored and supported by DCM-trainers. As for maintenance, DCM was further tailored to ID-care and a version for individual ID-care settings was developed, both as standards for international use. To sustain the use of DCM in ID-care, a multidisciplinary, interorganisational learning network was established. CONCLUSION: DCM tailored to ID-care proved to be an appropriate and valuable method to support staff in their work with aging clients, and it allows for further implementation. This is a first step to obtain an evidence-based method in ID-care for older clients.

Dementia care mapping to support staff in the care of people with intellectual disability and dementia: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The number of people with intellectual disability and dementia increases; this combination causes behavioural changes. Dementia Care Mapping (DCM) supports staff in dementia care in nursing homes and may be useful in intellectual disability-care. This qualitative study examines the feasibility of DCM for older people with intellectual disability and dementia. METHODS: The present authors obtained data in focus groups and interviews with professional users and analysed using a framework for feasibility studies. With experts in dementia and intellectual disability researches, the present authors determined the overall feasibility. RESULTS: DCM was found to be feasible in intellectual disability-care, regarding five domains of feasibility. Staff reported DCM to be useful and valuable and addresses to their demand for skills and knowledge. All professional users found DCM feasible in intellectual disability-care, which was confirmed by experts. CONCLUSIONS: DCM is feasible in intellectual disability-care. When fully tailored to intellectual disability-care, DCM is useful and provides opportunities to assess its effectiveness.

Exploration of the difference in incidence of renal replacement therapy between Flanders and the Netherlands--investigation of explanatory variables.

AIM: This study investigates the difference in the incidence of renal replacement therapy (RRT) between Flanders and the Netherlands and possible explanations for this difference. METHODS: End-stage renal disease incidence data were obtained from the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA). Additional sources were the National Institute of Statistics (NIS), the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) health data and the WHO Health For All database (WHO-HFA). RESULTS: There is remarkable difference in incidence rate of RRT between Flanders and the Netherlands, with a higher rate in Flanders. This difference is already present in patients aged 45-64 years and increases with age, being >2-fold higher in subjects of ≥ 75 years. With respect to the renal diagnoses leading to need for RRT, a higher share of especially diabetes mellitus type 2 and renovascular disease was observed in Flanders. Remarkably, the difference in incidence rate of RRT is not associated with a difference in survival on RRT, not even in the elderly, arguing against a restricted access to RRT in the Netherlands. In the general population, the expected number of healthy life years at birth is lower in Belgium than in the Netherlands, and in Belgium, the hospital discharge rates for diabetes, acute myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular accident and the number of coronary bypass procedures and percutaneous coronary interventions per capitum is higher, as is the prevalence of obesity. CONCLUSION: Our data do not support the assumption that the differences in RRT incidence in the elderly between Flanders and the Netherlands are due to a more restricted access to RRT in the Netherlands but may be due to differences in underlying comorbidity and life style between the two populations.

Exploration of the difference in incidence of renal replacement therapy in elderly patients in Flanders and the Netherlands--a comparison of referral policy.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of renal replacement therapy (RRT) among patients aged ≥65 years is much higher in Flanders, the Dutch speaking region of Belgium, than in the Netherlands. We studied whether differences in referral policy to nephrologists by primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists between Flanders and the Netherlands may play a role. METHODS: A vignette study was performed among 329 PCPs and 96 specialists in Flanders and compared to the vignette study that was conducted among 209 PCPs and 162 specialists in the Netherlands. Physicians were offered six vignettes concerning case reports of patients with chronic kidney disease and varying co-morbidities or social circumstances. Each vignette was presented for a 65- and an 80-year-old patient. Physicians were asked about the likelihood of referral of the patients in the given circumstances. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify whether country affected the likelihood of referral. RESULTS: Univariate analyses showed that the percentage of PCPs who would probably or definitely refer a 65- or an 80-year-old patient with less severe co-morbidity was significantly (P ≤ 0.001) higher in the Netherlands than in Flanders. However, the likelihood of referral of PCPs-concerning patients with more severe co-morbidity did not differ significantly. Specialists in Flanders did not differ in the likelihood to refer patients from that of specialists in the Netherlands. Logistic regression analysis showed that country (higher referral in the Netherlands) was an important predictor for the referral of PCPs, and this was especially the case for patients with less severe co-morbidity. These patterns persisted, even after controlling for other possible predictors as physicians' age, gender, religion and years in practice. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the lower RRT incidence in the Netherlands cannot be explained by a more restrictive referral policy among physicians in the Netherlands. The data suggested that the latter group had a similar or even more liberal attitude to the referral of older patients than physicians in Flanders.

Validation of the Dutch version of the itching cognitions questionnaire.

The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of the Dutch itching cognitions questionnaire (ICQ). This by origin German questionnaire, the Juckreiz Kognitons Fragebogen consists of two subscales: catastrophizing and helpless coping and problem-focused coping, and measures itch-related coping. The results were compared with the German and Japanese validation studies. The Dutch ICQ was completed by 171 patients with chronic pruritic skin diseases. Reliability was evaluated by determining internal consistency, mean inter-item correlation, and item-total correlation. Cronbach's alpha was .90 (catastrophizing and helpless coping) and .81 (problem-focused coping). The mean inter-item correlations for the subscales were .48 (catastrophizing and helpless coping) and .30 (problem-focused coping). The item-total correlations range from .57 to .76 (catastrophizing and helpless coping) and from .32 to .57 (problem-focused coping). Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a good fit of the model and support construct validity. Concurrent validity was determined by examining correlations of the ICQ with intensity of itching and scratching, depression, and anxiety. The correlations of the subscale catastrophizing and helpless coping with intensity of itching and intensity of scratching are .28 (p < .01) and .32 (p < .01), respectively. The correlation between the subscale problem-focused coping and intensity of itching is .23 (p < .01). No significant correlation exists between problem-focused coping and intensity of scratching. Correlations between both subscales and anxiety and depression vary from .33 to .58 (p < .01). It was concluded that the Dutch version of the ICQ is a reliable and valid instrument.

Goal-based outcomes of hospitalisation of older adults are predicted by gender, confidence, quality of life and type of goals.

PURPOSE: Although patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) might reflect relevant outcomes from patient perspective, they do not always reflect what the individual patient finds important. Our objectives were to assess which PROM was best suited to evaluate patient-relevant outcomes of hospitalisation and to assess which factors predicted this PROM. METHODS: A longitudinal study was conducted among hospitalised older patients. Three PROMs were compared with the anchor question 'How much have you benefited from the admission?': a general quality of life measure: EQ-5D; a measure of daily functioning: Katz-15 and a goal-based measure: achievement of self-defined goals. Predictors were examined using logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: We had 185 cases with baseline and follow-up. Accomplishment of self-defined goals showed a large correlation with the anchor question, whereas EQ-5D and Katz-15 showed no significant correlations. The final regression model had four predictors: being man, having higher confidence in goal achievement and good/excellent quality of life increased the odds for goal accomplishment, while having goals in the category alleviating complaints reduced the odds. CONCLUSION: Accomplishment of individual goals represented the benefit experienced by participants best. Subjective indicators of health and functioning are better predictors of goal accomplishment than objective ones. According to participant experience, the hospital appeared successful in managing disease-specific problems, but less successful in ameliorating complaints. Medical decision-making should not only be based on medical indicators, but the input of the patient is at least as important. Quality of life, goals and confidence should be discussed. More attention is needed for symptom experience.

Development of a new tool for the assessment of patient-defined benefit in hospitalised older patients: the Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients (P-BAS HOP).

OBJECTIVES: To support the shift from disease-oriented towards goal-oriented care, we aimed to develop a tool which is capable both to identify priorities of an individual older hospitalised patient and to measure the outcomes relevant to him. DESIGN: Mixed-methods design with open interviews, three step test interviews (TSTIs) and a quantitative field test. SETTING: University teaching hospital and a regional teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalised patients ages 70 years and older. RESULTS: The Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients (P-BAS HOP) consists of a baseline questionnaire and an evaluation questionnaire. Items were based on 15 qualitative interviews with hospitalised older patients. Feedback from a panel of four community-dwelling older persons resulted in some adaptations to wording and one additional item. Twenty-six hospitalised older patients participated in TSTIs with Version 1 of the baseline questionnaire, revealing indications for a good content validity and barriers in completion behaviour, global understanding and understanding of individual items, which were solved with several adaptations. Four additions were made by participants. After TSTIs with ten patients with the evaluation questionnaire, one adaptation was made. A field test with 91 hospitalised older patients revealed a small number of missing values.To enhance the feasibility, the number of items was reduced from 32 to 22, based on correlations and mean impact score. The field test was repeated with 104 other patients in a regional teaching hospital. To enhance the understanding, the tool was split into two phases. This version was tested with TSTIs with eight patients and appeared to be understandable. The final version was an interview-based tool and took about 11 min to complete. CONCLUSIONS: The P-BAS HOP is a potentially suitable tool to identify priorities and relevant outcomes of the individual patient. Further research is needed to investigate its validity, reliability and responsiveness.

Accepting or declining dialysis: considerations taken into account by elderly patients with end-stage renal disease.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients with end-stage renal disease have to make a difficult decision whether or not to start dialysis. This study explores the considerations taken into account by these patients in decision-making regarding renal replacement therapy. METHOD: In-depth interviews were conducted to gain an enhanced understanding of the considerations in treatment decision-making. Fourteen patients aged 65 years or older participated in the interviews, of whom 8 patients had made the decision to start, and 6 patients the decision to decline, dialysis. RESULTS: All participating patients had a variety of health problems, but appeared to have normal cognitive functions. Patients who declined dialysis were older and more often men and widow(er)s compared with patients who accepted dialysis. Patients chose to start dialysis because they enjoyed life, were not prepared to face the end of life, felt they had no other choice or had care-giving responsibilities for family members. Patients declined dialysis because of the speculated loss of autonomy, their age-associated decrease in vitality, distance from dialysis center and reluctance to think about the future. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that patients' decisions to decline or accept dialysis are not based on the effectiveness of the treatment, but rather on personal values, beliefs and feelings toward life, suffering and death, and the expected difficulties in fitting the treatment into their life.

Goals of older hospitalised patients: a qualitative descriptive study.

OBJECTIVES: Since the population continues ageing and the number of patients with multiple chronic diseases is rising in Western countries, a shift is recommended from disease oriented towards goal-oriented healthcare. As little is known about individual goals and preferences of older hospitalised patients, the aim of this study is to elucidate the goals of a diverse group of older hospitalised patients. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive method with open interviews analysed with inductive content analysis. SETTING: A university teaching hospital and a regional teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight hospitalised patients aged 70 years and older. RESULTS: Some older hospitalised patients initially had difficulties describing concrete goals, but after probing all were able to state more concrete goals. A great diversity of goals were categorised into wanting to know what the matter is, controlling disease, staying alive, improving condition, alleviating complaints, improving daily functioning, improving/maintaining social functioning, resuming work/hobbies and regaining/maintaining autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: Older hospitalised patients have a diversity of goals in different domains. Discussing goals with older patients is not a common practice yet. Timely discussions about goals should be encouraged because individual goals are not self-evident and this discussion can guide decision making, especially in patients with multimorbidity and frailty. Aids can be helpful to facilitate the discussion about goals and evaluate the outcomes of hospitalisation.

Prevalence of chronic health conditions in children with intellectual disability: a systematic literature review.

A systematic review of the prevalence rates of chronic health conditions in populations of children with intellectual disability was provided. We identified 2,994 relevant studies by searching Medline, Cinahl, and PsycINFO databases from 1996 to 2008. We included the 31 studies that had sufficient methodological quality. The 6 most prevalent chronic health conditions in children with intellectual disability were epilepsy (22.0/100), cerebral palsy (19.8/100), any anxiety disorder (17.1/100), oppositional defiant disorder (12.4/100), Down syndrome (11.0/100), and autistic disorder (10.1/100). The reported prevalence rates of chronic health conditions in this population was much higher than in the general population. However, both the number of studies that were included and the number of chronic health conditions they reported about were limited. There is an urgent need for better evidence on the prevalence of chronic health conditions among children with intellectual disability.

Differences between physicians in the likelihood of referral and acceptance of elderly patients for dialysis influence of age and comorbidity.

Background. Incidence of dialysis in elderly patients in the Netherlands is low compared to other countries. This study aims to assess the impact of patients' age and comorbidity on the likelihood of referral and acceptance of patients for dialysis and whether this is affected by physician characteristics. Methods. A vignette study was performed on 209 primary care physicians, 162 non-nephrology specialists and 20 nephrologists working in northern Netherlands. Physicians were offered six vignettes concerning case reports of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and varying comorbidities or circumstances and asked about the likelihood of referral/acceptance of the patient in the given circumstances. Results. The likelihood of referral within groups of physicians varied widely, especially within the group of primary care physicians and non-nephrology specialists, but was not affected by characteristics of the physicians. The likelihood of referral or acceptance of patients for dialysis depended on the patient's age, and type and severity of comorbidity. In general, primary care physicians and non-nephrology specialists were less likely to refer than nephrologists were willing to accept. Differences within and between groups of physicians to accept or refer were larger for 80-year-old patients than for 65-year-old patients. The differences were wider concerning patients with less severe shortness of breath and cognitive impairments and more severe diabetes and social impairments. Hardly any differences were found for patients with cancer. Conclusion. Patients' age and comorbidities affect the likelihood of referral. Differences between groups of physicians suggest that there is insufficient agreement on the extent to which these factors should affect the referral/acceptance of patients for dialysis. These findings underline the need for more research into circumstances under which patients might benefit from dialysis. Guidelines should be developed to improve the referral of elderly and less healthy patients.

Differences between physicians in the likelihood of referral and acceptance of elderly patients for dialysis-influence of age and comorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Incidence of dialysis in elderly patients in the Netherlands is low compared to other countries. This study aims to assess the impact of patients' age and comorbidity on the likelihood of referral and acceptance of patients for dialysis and whether this is affected by physician characteristics. METHODS: A vignette study was performed among 209 primary care physicians, 162 non-nephrology specialists and 20 nephrologists working in the north of the Netherlands. Physicians were offered six vignettes concerning case-reports of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and varying comorbidities or circumstances and asked about the likelihood of referral/acceptance of the patient in the given circumstances. RESULTS: The likelihood of referral within groups of physicians varied widely, especially within the group of primary care physicians and non-nephrology specialists, but was not affected by characteristics of physicians. The likelihood of referral or acceptance of patients for dialysis depended on the patient's age, and type and severity of comorbidity. In general, primary care physicians and non-nephrology specialists were less likely to refer than nephrologists were to accept. Differences within and between groups of physicians were larger for 80- than for 65-year-old patients, and for patients with less severe shortness of breath and cognitive impairments and more severe diabetes and social impairments. Hardly any differences were found for patients with cancer. CONCLUSION: Patients' age and comorbidities affect the likelihood of referral. Differences between groups of physicians suggest that there is insufficient agreement on the extent to which these factors should affect the referral/acceptance of patients for dialysis. These findings underline the need for more research into circumstances under which patients might benefit from dialysis. Guidelines should be developed to improve the referral of elderly and less healthy patients.