Measuring patients' experience with renal services in the UK: development and validation of the Kidney PREM.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience is a recognized aspect of quality of care for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but current patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) only focus on dialysis care. We developed and validated the Kidney PREM to assess patients' experience with renal services in secondary care for any CKD stage or treatment (transplant, haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis). METHODS: We developed the Kidney PREM in two phases, informed by a multidisciplinary expert group to ensure face validity. We organized three national data collections (2016-8) to investigate item response profiles and to conduct exploratory and confirmatory analyses to assess internal consistency. We also explored content validity in cognitive interviews and evaluated test-retest reliability. Finally, we developed the Kidney PREM Short Form for more frequent measurement of patient experience to inform local service improvements. RESULTS: We analysed 32 959 responses across data collections, with the 2018 collection covering all 71 UK renal centres. The Kidney PREM final version consisted of 38 items grouped into 13 themes, all pertaining to one underlying dimension reflecting the construct of 'patient experience' with high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.94). The Kidney PREM Short Form consisted of 15 items across the same 13 themes. CONCLUSIONS: The Kidney PREM supports the collection of reliable information on patient experience that people with CKD consider relevant, regardless of CKD stage or treatment modality. Kidney PREM data have the potential to guide local and national initiatives to improve patients' experiences with renal services in the UK and other countries.

Patient activation and its association with symptom burden and quality of life across the spectrum of chronic kidney disease stages in England.

BACKGROUND: The knowledge, skills, and confidence to manage one's own health is termed patient activation and can be assessed using the Patient Activation Measure (PAM). This measure is increasingly recommended for use in chronic kidney disease (CKD), but there is a need to better understand patient activation within this population. This work aimed to explore the association of PAM with patient-reported outcomes, namely symptom burden and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), to understand the relationship between patient activation and outcomes which are of importance to people with CKD. METHODS: Non-dialysis, dialysis, and kidney transplant patients from 14 renal units across England completed a survey comprising questionnaires assessing patient activation, symptom burden, and HRQoL. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to determine HRQoL and symptom burden subgroups in the data. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the associations between patient activation and symptom burden and HRQoL classes separately, adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation and treatment modality. RESULTS: Three thousand thirteen participants (mean age 61.5 years, 61.8% males, and 47% haemodialysis) were included in the analysis. Patient activation was strongly associated with both the HRQoL and symptom burden classes identified, with highly activated patients more likely to report higher HRQoL (P = < 0.0001; OR 29.2, 95% CI 19.5-43.9) and fewer symptoms (P = < 0.0001; OR 25.9, 95% CI 16.8-40.2). CONCLUSION: Lower activation levels are associated with a higher symptom burden and reduced HRQoL across the trajectory of CKD stages and treatment modalities. Therefore, targeted and holistic self-management support focussing on improving activation may have the potential to improve aspects of health experience which are valued by individuals living with kidney disease.

Rationale and design for SHAREHD: a quality improvement collaborative to scale up Shared Haemodialysis Care for patients on centre based haemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: The study objective is to assess the effectiveness and economic impact of a structured programme to support patient involvement in centre-based haemodialysis and to understand what works for whom in what circumstances and why. It implements a program of Shared Haemodialysis Care (SHC) that aims to improve experience and outcomes for those who are treated with centre-based haemodialysis, and give more patients the confidence to dialyse independently both at centres and at home. METHODS/DESIGN: The 24 month mixed methods cohort evaluation of 600 prevalent centre based HD patients is nested within a 30 month quality improvement program that aims to scale up SHC at 12 dialysis centres across England. SHC describes an intervention where patients who receive centre-based haemodialysis are given the opportunity to learn, engage with and undertake tasks associated with their treatment. Following a 6-month set up period, a phased implementation programme is initiated across 12 dialysis units using a randomised stepped wedge design with 6 centres participating in each of 2 steps, each lasting 6 months. The intervention utilises quality improvement methodologies involving rapid tests of change to determine the most appropriate mechanisms for implementation in the context of a learning collaborative. Running parallel with the stepped wedge intervention is a mixed methods cohort evaluation that employs patient questionnaires and interviews, and will link with routinely collected data at the end of the study period. The primary outcome measure is the number of patients performing at least 5 dialysis-related tasks collected using 3 monthly questionnaires. Secondary outcomes measures include: the number of people choosing to perform home haemodialysis or dialyse independently in-centre by the end of the study period; end-user recommendation; home dialysis establishment delay; staff impact and confidence; hospitalisation; infection and health economics. DISCUSSION: The results from this study will provide evidence of impact of SHC, barriers to patient and centre level adoption and inform development of future interventions to support its implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Number: 93999549 , (retrospectively registered 1st May 2017); NIHR Research Portfolio: 31566.

Symptom burden according to dialysis day of the week in three times a week haemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Haemodialysis patients experience significant symptom burden and effects on health-related quality of life. Studies have shown increases in fluid overload, hospitalization and mortality immediately after the long interdialytic interval in thrice weekly in-centre haemodialysis patients, however the relationship between the dialytic interval and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) has not been quantified and the extent to which dialysis day of PROM completion needs to be standardised is unknown. METHODS: Three times a week haemodialysis patients participating in a stepped wedge trial to increase patient participation in haemodialysis tasks completed PROMs (POS-S Renal symptom score and EQ-5D-5L) at recruitment, six, 12 and 18 months. Time from the long interdialytic interval, HD day of the week, and HD days vs non-HD days were included in mixed effects Linear Regression, estimating severity (none to overwhelming treated as 0 to 4) of 17 symptoms and EQ-5D-5L, adjusting for age, sex, time on HD, control versus intervention and Charlson Comorbidity Score. RESULTS: 517 patients completed 1659 YHS questionnaires that could be assigned HD day (510 on Mon/Tue/Sun, 549 on Wed/Thu/Tue, 308 on Fri/Sat/Thu and 269 on non-HD days). With the exception of restless legs and skin changes, there was no statistically significant change in symptom severity or EQ-5D-5L with increasing time from the long interdialytic interval. Patients who responded on non-HD days had higher severity of poor appetite, constipation, difficulty sleeping, poor mobility and depression (approximately 0.2 severity level), and lower EQ-5D-5L (-0.06, CI -0.09 to -0.03) compared to HD days. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring symptom severity and EQ-5D-5L in haemodialysis populations does not need to account for dialysis schedule, but completion either on HD or non-HD days could introduce bias that may impact evaluation of interventions. Researchers should ensure completion of these instruments are standardized on either dialysis or non-dialysis days.

Symptom clusters in chronic kidney disease and their association with people's ability to perform usual activities.

BACKGROUND: People living with a long-term condition, such as chronic kidney disease (CKD), often suffer from multiple symptoms simultaneously, making symptom management challenging. This study aimed to identify symptom clusters in adults with CKD across treatment groups and investigate their association with people's ability to perform their usual activities. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of both cross-sectional and longitudinal data collected as part of a national service improvement programme in 14 kidney centres in England, UK. This data included symptom severity (17 items, POS-S Renal) and the extent to which people had problems performing their usual activities (single item, EQ-5D-5L). We categorised data by treatment group: haemodialysis (n = 1,462), transplantation (n = 866), peritoneal dialysis (n = 127), or CKD without kidney replacement therapy (CKD non-KRT; n = 684). We used principal component analysis to identify symptom clusters per treatment group, and proportional odds models to assess the association between clusters and usual activities. RESULTS: Overall, clusters related to: lack of energy and mobility; gastrointestinal; skin; and mental health. Across groups, the 'lack of energy and mobility' clusters were associated with having problems with usual activities, with odds ratios (OR) ranging between 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.57) for haemodialysis and 1.56 for peritoneal dialysis (95% CI, 1.28-1.90). This association was confirmed longitudinally in haemodialysis (n = 399) and transplant (n = 249) subgroups. IMPLICATIONS: Our findings suggest that healthcare professionals should consider routinely assessing symptoms in the 'lack of energy & mobility' cluster in all people with CKD, regardless of whether they volunteer this information; not addressing these symptoms is likely to be related to them having problems with performing usual activities. Future studies should explore why symptoms within clusters commonly co-occur and how they interrelate. This will inform the development of cluster-level symptom management interventions with enhanced potential to improve outcomes for people with CKD.

Clinical Assessment of Dialysis Recovery Time and Symptom Burden: Impact of Switching Hemodialysis Therapy Mode.

INTRODUCTION: Most people on hemodialysis (HD) report a high symptom burden. Fatigue and lack of energy are prominent, interfering with daily life and associated with poor outcome. Prolonged recovery time after each of the thrice weekly dialysis treatments is common. The impact of HD therapies, like expanded hemodialysis (HDx), on patient reported recovery time and symptom burden is unclear. METHODS: A dialysis unit decided to perform regular assessments of patient-reported symptom burden, using the POS-S Renal Symptom questionnaire and the "Recovery time from last dialysis session" question as part of routine patient focused care. At a similar time, a clinical evidence-based decision was taken to switch the in-center dialysis cohort from regular high-flux dialysis membrane to medium cut-off (MCO) membrane, introducing HDx therapy. RESULTS: Quarterly assessment of patient-reported symptom burden was well accepted. A sustained clinically relevant reduction in post-dialysis recovery time was observed following the therapy switch. In patients providing data up to 12 months (N = 58), median recovery time decreased from 210 min (IQR 7.5-600) to 60 min (0-210; p = 0.002) and 105 min (0-180; p = 0.001) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Thirty-six percent of individuals reported a recovery time longer than 360 minutes at the initial assessment, which decreased to 9% at 12 months. The POS-S Renal total symptom score showed a decrease at 6 months but no difference from baseline at 12 months. The "fatigue/lack of energy" symptom showed a sustained improvement; the percentage of participants scoring its impact as "severe" or "overwhelming" decreased from 28% at baseline to 16% at 12 months. Changes in other symptoms were more variable. CONCLUSION: Regular assessment of patient reported symptoms is feasible in routine dialysis practice and can help in evaluating the impact of clinical interventions. Observations suggest that HDx therapy may reduce post-dialysis recovery time and improve perceived fatigue level.

Contributions of treatment centre and patient characteristics to patient-reported experience of haemodialysis: a national cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relative importance of patient and centre level factors in determining self-reported experience of care in patients with advanced kidney disease treated by maintenance haemodialysis (HD). DESIGN: Analysis of data from a cross sectional national survey; the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) national Kidney patient-reported experience measure (PREM) survey (2018). Centre-level data were obtained from the UKRR report (2018). SETTING: National survey of patients with advanced kidney disease receiving treatment with maintenance HD in UK renal centres in 2018. PARTICIPANTS: The Kidney PREM was distributed to all UK renal centres by the UKRR in May 2018. Each centre invited patients receiving outpatient treatment for kidney disease to complete the PREM. These included patients with chronic kidney disease, those receiving dialysis-both HD and peritoneal dialysis, and those with a functioning kidney transplant. There were no formal inclusion/exclusion criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Kidney PREM has 38 questions in 13 subscales. Responses were captured using a 7-point Likert scale (never 1, always 7). The primary outcome of interest was the mean PREM score calculated across all questions. Multilevel modelling was used to determine the proportion of variation of the mean PREM score across centres due to patient-related and centre-related factors. RESULTS: There were records for 8253 HD patients (61% men, 77% white) from 69 renal centres (9-710 patients per centre). There was significant variation in mean PREM score across centres (5.35-6.53). In the multivariable analysis there was some variation in relation to both patient- and centre-level factors but these contributed little to explaining the overall variation. However, multilevel modelling showed that the overwhelming proportion of the explained variance (45%) was explained by variation between centres (40%), only a small proportion of which is identified by measured factors. Only 5% of the variation was related to patient-level factors. CONCLUSIONS: Centre rather than patient characteristics determine the experience of care of patients receiving HD. Further work is required to define the characteristics of the treating centre which determine patient experience.

A breakthrough series collaborative to increase patient participation with hemodialysis tasks: A stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Compared to in-centre, home hemodialysis is associated with superior outcomes. The impact on patient experience and clinical outcomes of consistently providing the choice and training to undertake hemodialysis-related treatment tasks in the in-centre setting is unknown. METHODS: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in 12 UK renal centres recruited prevalent in-centre hemodialysis patients with sites randomised into early and late participation in a 12-month breakthrough series collaborative that included data collection, learning events, Plan-Study-Do-Act cycles, and teleconferences repeated every 6 weeks, underpinned by a faculty, co-production, materials and a nursing course. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients undertaking five or more hemodialysis-related tasks or home hemodialysis. Secondary outcomes included independent hemodialysis, quality of life, symptoms, patient activation and hospitalisation. ISRCTN Registration Number 93999549. RESULTS: 586 hemodialysis patients were recruited. The proportion performing 5 or more tasks or home hemodialysis increased from 45.6% to 52.3% (205 to 244/449, difference 6.2%, 95% CI 1.4 to 11%), however after analysis by step the adjusted odds ratio for the intervention was 1.63 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.81, P = 0.08). 28.3% of patients doing less than 5 tasks at baseline performed 5 or more at the end of the study (69/244, 95% CI 22.2-34.3%, adjusted odds ratio 3.71, 95% CI 1.66-8.31). Independent or home hemodialysis increased from 7.5% to 11.6% (32 to 49/423, difference 4.0%, 95% CI 1.0-7.0), but the remaining secondary endpoints were unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: Our intervention did not increase dialysis related tasks being performed by a prevalent population of centre based patients, but there was an increase in home hemodialysis as well as an increase in tasks among patients who were doing fewer than 5 at baseline. Further studies are required that examine interventions to engage people who dialyse at centres in their own care.

Incorporating patient-reported symptom assessments into routine care for people with chronic kidney disease.

In this issue of Clinical Kidney Journal, Brown and colleagues show that symptom burden is high across all stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Still, management of symptoms in kidney patients leaves room for improvement, which may partly stem from symptoms being underreported. The use of patient-reported questionnaires may facilitate a more systematic approach to symptom assessment, but to date, the majority of these instruments have been used only in the context of research studies. In this editorial, we review how systematic patient-reported symptom assessments can be incorporated in CKD care. We show examples from an initiative in the UK where 14 renal units explored how to collect and use symptom burden assessments as part of their routine ways of working. We also discuss how to move from paper-based questionnaires towards digital collection of patient-reported symptom data. Lastly, we introduce wearable and smartphone sensors as novel methods for collecting information to support and enrich symptom assessments while minimizing data collection burden.