Survival among Veterans Obtaining Dialysis in VA and Non-VA Settings.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of veterans with ESRD may differ depending on where they receive dialysis and who finances this care, but little is known about variation in outcomes across different dialysis settings and financial arrangements. METHODS: We examined survival among 27,241 Veterans Affairs (VA)-enrolled veterans who initiated chronic dialysis in 2008-2011 at (1) VA-based units, (2) community-based clinics through the Veterans Affairs Purchased Care program (VA-PC), (3) community-based clinics under Medicare, or (4) more than one of these settings ("dual" care). Using a Cox proportional hazards model, we compared all-cause mortality across dialysis settings during the 2-year period after dialysis initiation, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 4% of patients received dialysis in VA, 11% under VA-PC, 67% under Medicare, and 18% in dual settings (nearly half receiving dual VA and VA-PC dialysis). Crude 2-year mortality was 25% for veterans receiving dialysis in the VA, 30% under VA-PC, 42% under Medicare, and 23% in dual settings. After adjustment, dialysis patients in VA or in dual settings had significantly lower 2-year mortality than those under Medicare; mortality did not differ in VA-PC and Medicare dialysis settings. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality rates were highest for veterans receiving dialysis in Medicare or VA-PC settings and lowest for veterans receiving dialysis in the VA or dual settings. These findings inform institutional decisions about provision of dialysis for veterans. Further research identifying processes associated with improved survival for patients receiving VA-based dialysis may be useful in establishing best practices for outsourced veteran care.

Emotional Impact of Illness and Care on Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The highly specialized and technologically focused approach to care inherent to many health systems can adversely affect patients' emotional experiences of illness, while also obscuring these effects from the clinician's view. We describe what we learned from patients with advanced kidney disease about the emotional impact of illness and care. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: As part of an ongoing study on advance care planning, we conducted semistructured interviews at the VA Puget Sound Healthcare System in Seattle, Washington, with 27 patients with advanced kidney disease between April of 2014 and May of 2016. Of these, ten (37%) were receiving center hemodialysis, five (19%) were receiving peritoneal dialysis, and 12 (44%) had an eGFR≤20 ml/min per 1.73 m2 and had not started dialysis. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed inductively using grounded theory methods. RESULTS: We here describe three emergent themes related to patients' emotional experiences of care and illness: (1) emotional impact of interactions with individual providers: when providers seemed to lack insight into the patient's experience of illness and treatment, this could engender a sense of mistrust, abandonment, isolation, and/or alienation; (2) emotional impact of encounters with the health care system: just as they could be affected emotionally by interactions with individual providers, patients could also be affected by how care was organized, which could similarly lead to feelings of mistrust, abandonment, isolation, and/or alienation; and (3) emotional impact of meaning-making: patients struggled to make sense of their illness experience, worked to apportion blame, and were often quick to blame themselves and to assume that their illness could have been prevented. CONCLUSIONS: Interactions with individual providers and with the wider health system coupled with patients' own struggles to make meaning of their illness can take a large emotional toll. A deeper appreciation of patients' emotional experiences may offer important opportunities to improve care.

Prognostic implications of clinical practice guidelines among hemodialysis patients.

Although the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) has published clinical practice guidelines for the management of risk factors for cardiovascular disease, these guidelines have not been tested rigorously for their effectiveness. We conducted an observational study among patients with end-stage kidney disease to examine the prognostic impact of threshold levels recommended by the NKF for blood pressure, hemoglobin, calcium-phosphate product, parathyroid hormone, low-density lipoprotein, and glycosylated hemoglobin. The study population (N = 197) was assembled from a previously completed randomized trial examining arteriovenous graft thrombosis. Cox proportional hazard analysis was used to calculate hazard ratios for the association of levels outside guideline recommended targets and death, adjusting for age, comorbidity, race, and albumin. The proportion of patients outside guideline targets ranged from 33% to 81%, and the impact of levels outside guideline targets on mortality varied substantially. Elevated calcium-phosphate product and glycosylated hemoglobin had harmful effects, with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.58 (95% CI 1.00-2.50; p = 0.050) and 2.21 (95% CI 0.99-4.97; p = 0.054), respectively. Nontarget levels for blood pressure, hemoglobin, and parathyroid hormone had little effect, with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.15 (95% CI 0.74-1.78; p = 0.542), 1.04 (95% CI 0.65-1.68; p = 0.866), and 0.90 (95% CI 0.50-1.61; p = 0.722), respectively. Elevated low-density lipoprotein had a paradoxically beneficial effect, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.48 (95% CI 0.23-1.00; p = 0.049). These results suggest that the prognostic impact of current threshold levels recommended by select NKF guidelines on mortality is variable. Accordingly, the development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines should be accompanied by corresponding efforts to confirm their impact on patient outcomes. Such efforts are essential for the improvement of guidelines and to inform health policy optimally.