Two randomized controlled trials for colorectal cancer screening invitations developed using a behavioral science approach.

The effectiveness of behaviorally informed, targeted invitations to standard invitations and to no invitation (control arm, primary analysis) were compared in the context of an organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program. Two multi-arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trials in men (arms: male-specific, unisex, standard invitation, or no invitation) and in women (arms: unisex, standard invitation, or no invitation), were conducted in Ontario, Canada. Eligible persons aged 50-74, due for CRC screening, were randomized. Primary and secondary outcomes were completion of the guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) and uptake of any colorectal test, respectively, within 5 months of mailing. Impact of invitation type was assessed using logistic regression. Letters were mailed to 75,810 men and women; 38,673 males and 34,453 females were included in the analyses. Men who received the male-specific letter were most likely to screen with gFOBT compared to controls (odds ratio (OR) 7·24, 95% CI: 5·77, 9·09), followed by those receiving the unisex letter (OR 6·75, 95% CI: 5·37, 8·47) and the standard letter (OR 5·99, 95% CI: 4·76, 7·53). Women who received the unisex letter were most likely to be screened with gFOBT compared to controls (OR 7·07, 95% CI: 5·83, 8·59), followed by those receiving the standard letter (OR 6·76, 95% CI: 5·56, 8·21). In both trials, the findings were similar for the secondary outcome. Mailed invitations were effective for both men and women. With greater targeting using the behaviorally informed invitations, the magnitude of benefit relative to no invitation appeared to increase. (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02364895).

Implementation of a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic to Improve the Efficiency of the Living Kidney Donor Evaluation: Program Report.

Purpose of program: A key barrier to becoming a living kidney donor is an inefficient evaluation process, requiring more than 30 tests (eg, laboratory and diagnostic tests), questionnaires, and specialist consultations. Donor candidates make several trips to hospitals and clinics, and often spend months waiting for appointments and test results. The median evaluation time for a donor candidate in Ontario, Canada, is nearly 1 year. Longer wait times are associated with poorer outcomes for the kidney transplant recipient and higher health care costs. A shorter, more efficient donor evaluation process may help more patients with kidney failure receive a transplant, including a pre-emptive kidney transplant (ie, avoiding the need for dialysis). In this report, we describe the development of a quality improvement intervention to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and patient-centeredness of the donor candidate evaluation process. We developed a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic, a condensed clinic where interested donor candidates complete all testing and consultations within 1 day. Sources of information: The One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic was developed after performing a comprehensive review of the literature, receiving feedback from patients who have successfully donated, and meetings with transplant program leadership from St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton. A multistakeholder team was formed that included health care staff from nephrology, transplant surgery, radiology, cardiology, social work, nuclear medicine, and patients with the prior lived experience of kidney donation. In the planning stages, the team met regularly to determine the objectives of the clinic, criteria for participation, clinic schedule, patient flow, and clinic metrics. Methods: Donor candidates entered the One-Day Clinic if they completed initial laboratory testing and agreed to an expedited process. If additional testing was required, it was completed on a different day. Donor candidates were reviewed by the nephrologist, transplant surgeon, and donor coordinator approximately 2 weeks after the clinic for final approval. The team continues to meet regularly to review donor feedback, discuss challenges, and brainstorm solutions. Key findings: The One-Day Clinic was implemented in March 2019, and has now been running for 4 years, making iterative improvements through continuous patient and provider feedback. To date, we have evaluated more than 150 donor candidates in this clinic. Feedback from donors has been uniformly positive (98% of donors stated they were very satisfied with the clinic), with most noting that the clinic was efficient and minimally impacted work and family obligations. Hospital leadership, including the health care professionals from each participating department, continue to show support and collaborate to create a seamless experience for donor candidates attending the One-Day Clinic. Limitations: Clinic spots are limited, meaning some interested donor candidates may not be able to enter a One-Day Clinic the same month they come forward. Implications: This patient-centered quality improvement intervention is designed to improve the efficiency and experience of the living kidney donor evaluation, result in better outcomes for kidney transplant recipients, and potentially increase living donation. Our next step is to conduct a formal evaluation of the clinic, measuring qualitative feedback from health care professionals working in the clinic and donor candidates attending the clinic, and measuring key process and outcome measures in donor candidates who completed the one-day assessment compared with those who underwent the usual care assessment. This program evaluation will provide reliable, regionally relevant evidence that will inform transplant centers across the country as they consider incorporating a similar one-day assessment model.

Objectifs du programme: Devenir donneur de rein vivant est difficile, le principal obstacle étant le processus d'évaluation inefficace auquel les candidats doivent se soumettre. Ce processus comporte plus de 30 examens (p. ex. tests de laboratoire et tests diagnostiques), questionnaires et consultations avec des spécialistes. Les candidats donneurs font plusieurs visites dans les hôpitaux et cliniques, et passent souvent plusieurs mois à attendre des rendez-vous et des résultats de tests. En Ontario (Canada), le délai médian pour l'évaluation d'un candidat au don est de près d'un an. Les temps d'attente plus longs sont associés à de moins bons résultats pour les receveurs d'une greffe rénale, ainsi qu'à des coûts de soins de santé plus élevés. Un processus d'évaluation plus court et plus efficace des donneurs potentiels permettrait à un plus grand nombre de patients atteints d'insuffisance rénale de recevoir une greffe, y compris une greffe préventive (c.-à-d. permettant d'éviter la dialyse). Cet article décrit une intervention d'amélioration de la qualité visant à augmenter l'efficience, l'efficacité et la personnalisation du processus d'évaluation des candidats au don. Nous avons développé une clinique d'un jour pour l'évaluation des donneurs de reins vivants (One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic), soit une clinique condensée où les candidats passent tous les tests et consultent un spécialiste dans la même journée. Sources de l'information: La clinique d'un jour pour l'évaluation des donneurs de reins vivants a été développée à la suite d'un examen approfondi de la littérature, de la consultation des commentaires de patients ayant donné avec succès et de rencontres avec les dirigeants du programme de transplantation du St Joseph's Healthcare d'Hamilton. Une équipe multipartite a été formée; celle-ci réunit du personnel soignant en néphrologie, chirurgie de transplantation, radiologie, cardiologie, travail social et médecine nucléaire, ainsi que des patients ayant une expérience vécue du don de rein. L'équipe s'est réunie régulièrement pendant les étapes de planification pour déterminer les objectifs, les paramètres et le calendrier de la clinique, ainsi que les critères de participation et le flux de patients. Méthodologie: Les donneurs potentiels qui avaient complété les tests de laboratoire initiaux et qui acceptaient de se soumettre à un processus accéléré ont été évalués à la clinique d'un jour. Si des tests supplémentaires étaient nécessaires, ceux-ci étaient effectués un autre jour. Les candidats ont été rencontrés par le néphrologue, le chirurgien de transplantation et le coordonnateur des dons environ deux semaines après leur visite à la clinique pour l'approbation finale. L'équipe multipartite continue de se réunir régulièrement pour examiner les commentaires des donneurs, discuter des défis et trouver des solutions. Principaux résultats: La clinique d'un jour, mise sur pied en mars 2019, est en activité depuis quatre ans et permet des améliorations itératives grâce à la rétroaction continue des patients et des soignants. À ce jour, plus de 150 candidats au don ont été évalués à la clinique. Les commentaires des donneurs sont quasi unanimement positifs (98 % des candidats ont déclaré être très satisfaits de la clinique), la plupart soulignant l'efficacité de la clinique et les conséquences minimes du processus sur les obligations professionnelles et familiales. La direction de l'hôpital, tout comme les professionnels de la santé des services participants, continue d'appuyer la clinique d'un jour et de collaborer à la création d'une expérience fluide pour les donneurs potentiels qui la fréquentent. Limites: Les places à la clinique sont limitées; ainsi, certains candidats au don d'un rein vivant pourraient ne pas pouvoir être admis dans le mois où ils se présentent à la clinique. Conclusion: Cette intervention d'amélioration de la qualité axée sur les patients est conçue pour augmenter l'efficacité du processus d'évaluation et bonifier l'expérience des donneurs de rein vivants. Elle vise également à améliorer les résultats des receveurs d'une greffe rénale et, potentiellement, augmenter le don vivant. La prochaine étape sera une évaluation formelle de la clinique, c'est-à-dire la mesure de la rétroaction qualitative des professionnels de la santé qui y travaillent et des candidats au don qui la fréquentent, et l'analyse des processus clés et des résultats des candidats évalués à la clinique d'un jour par rapport à ceux qui suivent le processus d'évaluation habituel. Cette évaluation du programme fournira des données probantes fiables et propres à la région qui pourront informer les centres de transplantation de tout le pays qui envisagent d'intégrer un processus d'évaluation similaire.

Clinical Outcomes and Vaccine Effectiveness for SARS-CoV-2 Infection in People Attending Advanced CKD Clinics: A Retrospective Provincial Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: People with advanced CKD are at high risk of mortality and morbidity from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We measured rates of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe outcomes in a large population attending advanced CKD clinics during the first 21 months of the pandemic. We examined risk factors for infection and case fatality, and we assessed vaccine effectiveness in this population. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data on demographics, diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection rates, outcomes, and associated risk factors, including vaccine effectiveness, for people attending a province-wide network of advanced CKD clinics during the first four waves of the pandemic in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: In a population of 20,235 patients with advanced CKD, 607 were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection over 21 months. The case fatality rate at 30 days was 19% overall but declined from 29% in the first wave to 14% in the fourth. Hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates were 41% and 12%, respectively, and 4% started long-term dialysis within 90 days. Significant risk factors for diagnosed infection on multivariable analysis included lower eGFR, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, attending advanced CKD clinics for more than 2 years, non-White ethnicity, lower income, living in the Greater Toronto Area, and long-term care home residency. Being doubly vaccinated was associated with lower 30-day case fatality rate (odds ratio [OR], 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.52). Older age (OR, 1.06 per year; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.08) and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR, 1.11 per unit; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.23) were associated with higher 30-day case fatality rate. CONCLUSIONS: People attending advanced CKD clinics and diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first 21 months of the pandemic had high case fatality and hospitalization rates. Fatality rates were significantly lower in those who were doubly vaccinated. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2023_04_10_CJN10560922.mp3.

Acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy in people with COVID-19 disease in Ontario, Canada: a prospective analysis of risk factors and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Severely ill people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at risk of acute kidney injury treated with renal replacement therapy (AKI-RRT). The understanding of the risk factors and outcomes for AKI-RRT is incomplete. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on the incidence, demographics, area of residence, time course, outcomes and associated risk factors for all COVID-19 AKI-RRT cases during the first two waves of the pandemic in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: There were 271 people with AKI-RRT, representing 0.1% of all diagnosed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) cases. These included 10% of SARS-CoV-2 admissions to intensive care units (ICU). Median age was 65 years, with 11% <50 years, 76% were male, 47% non-White and 48% had diabetes. Overall, 59% resided in the quintile of Ontario neighborhoods with the greatest ethnocultural composition and 51% in the two lowest income quintile neighborhoods. Mortality was 58% at 30 days after RRT initiation, and 64% at 90 days. By 90 days, 20% of survivors remained RRT-dependent and 31% were still hospitalized. On multivariable analysis, people aged >70 years had higher mortality (odds ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.3, 4.6). Cases from the second versus the first COVID-19 wave were older, had more baseline comorbidity and were more likely to initiate RRT  >2 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis (34% versus 14%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: AKI-RRT is common in COVID-19 ICU admissions. Residency in areas with high ethnocultural composition and lower socioeconomic status are strong risk factors. Late-onset AKI-RRT was more common in the second wave. Mortality is high and 90-day survivors have persisting high morbidity.