A Bitter Pill to Swallow: The Challenge of Medication Nonadherence in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is the most common life-threatening autoimmune disease and a leading cause of mortality among young women of Black race and Hispanic ethnicity.1 Treatment of SLE is complex, requiring immune-altering medicines to reduce disease activity and prevent disease-related damage.

Referral and evaluation for kidney transplantation among patients with lupus nephritis-related end-stage kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: For the majority of patients with lupus nephritis-related end-stage kidney disease (LN-ESKD), kidney transplant is associated with better outcomes than dialysis. Access to kidney transplant requires an initial referral to a transplant center and medical evaluation prior to waitlisting. The study's objective was to examine access to these early steps in the kidney transplant process among patients with LN-ESKD. METHODS: Adults who began treatment for ESKD in the Southeast, Northeast, New York, or Ohio River Valley U.S. regions from 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2019, followed through 6/30/2021, were identified from the United States Renal Data System. Referral and evaluation start data were collected from 28 of 48 transplant centers across these regions. The exposure was primary cause of ESKD (LN-ESKD vs other-ESKD). The outcomes were referral and evaluation start at a transplant center. Cox models quantified the association between LN-ESKD (vs other-ESKD) and referral and evaluation start. RESULTS: Among 192,318 patients initiating treatment for ESKD, 0.4% had LN-ESKD. Over half (58%) of LN-ESKD patients were referred before study end, and among those referred, 66% started the evaluation. In adjusted analyses, patients with LN-ESKD were referred (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.19) and started the transplant evaluation (HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.28) at a higher rate than patients with other-ESKD. Among referred patients with LN-ESKD, the median time from ESKD start to referral was 2.9 months (IQR: <1 to 11.7 months), which is similar to patients with other-ESKD (median 2.6 months, IQR: <1 to 8.8 months). CONCLUSIONS: Among incident patients with ESKD, having a primary diagnosis of LN-ESKD versus other-ESKD is associated with higher rates of early transplant access outcomes. Despite this, patients with LN-ESKD (vs other-ESKD) are less likely to be preemptively referred (i.e., referred prior to ESKD start) for kidney transplant. While providers may no longer be delaying the early steps in the kidney transplantation process among this patient population, there is still room for improvement in the rates of preemptive referral. Access to kidney transplant referral prior to ESKD could result in increased transplant rates and better transplant outcomes for patients with LN-ESKD.

Professional Fulfillment, Burnout, and Turnover Intention Among US Dialysis Patient Care Technicians: A National Survey.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: High professional fulfillment and low burnout and staff turnover are necessary for a stable dialysis workforce. We explored professional fulfillment, burnout, and turnover intention among US dialysis patient care technicians (PCTs). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional national survey. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: National Association of Nephrology Technicians/Technologists (NANT) members in March-May 2022 (N=228; 42.6% aged 35-49 years, 83.9% female, 64.6% White, 85.3% non-Hispanic). EXPOSURE: Likert-scale items (range, 0-4) related to professional fulfillment and 2 domains of burnout (work exhaustion and interpersonal disengagement) and dichotomous items related to turnover intention. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Summary statistics (percentages, means, medians) were calculated for individual items and average domain scores. Burnout was defined by combined work exhaustion and interpersonal disengagement scores of≥1.3 and professional fulfillment by a score≥3.0. RESULTS: Most respondents (72.8%) worked ≥40 hours per week. Overall scores for work exhaustion, interpersonal disengagement, and professional fulfillment (median [IQR]) were 2.3 (1.3-3.0), 1.0 (0.3-1.8), and 2.6 (2.0-3.2), respectively; 57.5% reported burnout, and 37.3% reported professional fulfillment. Important contributors to burnout and professional fulfillment included salary (66.5%), supervisor support (64.0%), respect from other dialysis staff (57.8%), sense of purpose about work (54.5%), and hours worked per week (52.9%). Only 52.6% reported that they plan to be working as a dialysis PCT in 3 years. Free text responses reinforced perceived excessive work burden and lack of respect. LIMITATIONS: Limited generalizability to all US dialysis PCTs. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of dialysis PCTs reported burnout, driven by work exhaustion; only about one-third reported professional fulfillment. Even among this relatively engaged group of dialysis PCTs, only half intended to continue working as PCTs. Because of the critical, frontline role of dialysis PCTs in the care of patient receiving in-center hemodialysis, strategies to improve morale and reduce turnover are imperative.

Work Experiences of the Interdisciplinary Dialysis Workforce in the United States: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Suboptimal dialysis care may be in part due to staff issues such as job dissatisfaction, burnout, work overload, high staff turnover, and inconsistent training. Here, we leveraged data collected in a recent national survey to provide an initial, comprehensive description of current work experiences of US dialysis care providers. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1,240 active US dialysis clinic staff members (physicians, advanced practice providers, nurse managers/clinic coordinators, nurses, social workers, dietitians, and patient care technicians), who were recruited via emails to society membership lists. Respondents were asked about a wide variety of work experiences, including job satisfaction, professional fulfillment, and burnout (Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index), work culture, experiences of hostility and violence, and self-reported medical errors. Responses were summarized overall and compared by clinic role. RESULTS: Most of the survey respondents, representing all 50 US states, were aged 35-49 years (58.3%) or ≥50 years (23.5%), female (60.7%), and white (59.8%; 23.1% black, and 10.0% Asian); 82.1% had been in their current role for at least 1 year. Most US dialysis staff responding to our survey reported being generally satisfied with their jobs (mean rating of 7.9 on 0-10 scale), but only 54.4% met criteria for professional fulfillment, and 32.8% met criteria for burnout, driven by high scores in the work exhaustion domain. Related issues, including high workloads, lack of respect (including experiences of violence and hostility), lack of autonomy, and suboptimal patient environments (in terms of both safety and patient centeredness), were commonly reported among dialysis care providers, although their prevalence often differed by provider type. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the dialysis workforce may be at a critical point. Preventing further staff burnout, which could lead to even greater staffing shortages and worse working conditions among those who continue to provide dialysis care, is essential.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Kidney Replacement Therapies Among Adults With Kidney Failure: An Observational Study of Variation by Patient Age.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients present with kidney failure at younger ages than White patients. Younger patients are also more likely to receive transplants and home dialysis than in-center hemodialysis (ICHD), but it is unknown whether racial and ethnic disparities in treatment differ by age. We compared use of kidney replacement therapies between racial and ethnic groups among patients with incident kidney failure overall and by age. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 830,402 US adult (age >21 years) patients initiating kidney failure treatment during the period of 2011-2018. EXPOSURES: Patient race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, or other) and age group (22-44, 45-64, 65-74, or 75-99 years). OUTCOME: Treatment modality (transplant, peritoneal dialysis [PD], home hemodialysis [HHD], or ICHD) as of day 90 of treatment. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Differences in treatment modalities were quantified for patient subgroups defined by race and ethnicity and by age. Log-binomial regression models were fit to estimate adjusted risk ratios. RESULTS: 81% of patients were treated with ICHD, 3.0% underwent transplants (85% preemptive, 57% living-donor), 10.5% were treated with PD, and 0.7% were treated with HHD. Absolute disparities in treatment were most pronounced among patients aged 22-44 years. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, whose percentages of treatment with transplant, PD, and HHD were 10.9%, 19.0%, and 1.2%, respectively, non-Hispanic Black patients were less commonly treated with each modality (unadjusted percentages, 1.8%, 13.8%, and 0.6%, respectively), as were Hispanic patients (4.4%, 16.9%, and 0.5%, respectively; all differences P < 0.001). After adjustment, the largest relative disparities were observed for transplant among the 22-44-year age group; compared with non-Hispanic White patients, the adjusted risk ratios for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients were 0.21 (95% CI, 0.19-0.23) and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.43, 0.51), respectively. LIMITATIONS: Race and ethnicity data not self-reported. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with incident kidney failure, racial and ethnic disparities in transplant and home dialysis use are most pronounced among the youngest adult patient age group.

Making sense of DialysisConnect: a qualitative analysis of stakeholder viewpoints on a web-based information exchange platform to improve care transitions between dialysis clinics and hospitals.

BACKGROUND: U.S. hospitals and dialysis centers are penalized for 30-day hospital readmissions of dialysis patients, despite little infrastructure to facilitate care transitions between these settings. We are developing a third-party web-based information exchange platform, DialysisConnect, to enable clinicians to view and exchange information about dialysis patients during admission, hospitalization, and discharge. This health information technology solution could serve as a flexible and relatively affordable solution for dialysis facilities and hospitals across the nation who are seeking to serve as true partners in the improved care of dialysis patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the perceived coherence of DialysisConnect to key clinical stakeholders, to prepare messaging for implementation. METHODS: As part of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study guided by Normalization Process Theory, we collected data on stakeholder perceptions of continuity of care for patients receiving maintenance dialysis and a DialysisConnect prototype before completing development and piloting the system. We conducted four focus groups with stakeholders from one academic hospital and associated dialysis centers [hospitalists (n = 5), hospital staff (social workers, nurses, pharmacists; n = 9), nephrologists (n = 7), and dialysis clinic staff (social workers, nurses; n = 10)]. Transcriptions were analyzed thematically within each component of the construct of coherence (differentiation, communal specification, individual specification, and internalization). RESULTS: Participants differentiated DialysisConnect from usual care variously as an information dashboard, a quick-exchange communication channel, and improved discharge information delivery; some could not differentiate it in terms of workflow. The purpose of DialysisConnect (communal specification) was viewed as fully coherent only for communicating outside of the same healthcare system. Current system workarounds were acknowledged as deterrents for practice change. All groups delegated DialysisConnect tasks (individual specification) to personnel besides themselves. Partial internalization of DialysisConnect was achieved only by dialysis clinic staff, based on experience with similar technology. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing DialysisConnect for clinical users in both settings will require presenting a composite picture of current communication processes from all stakeholder groups to correct single-group misunderstandings, as well as providing data about care transitions communication beyond the local context to ease resistance to practice change.

Dialysis facility referral and start of evaluation for kidney transplantation among patients treated with dialysis in the Southeastern United States.

Variability in transplant access exists, but barriers to referral and evaluation are underexplored due to lack of national surveillance data. We examined referral for kidney transplantation evaluation and start of the evaluation among 34 857 incident, adult (18-79 years) end-stage kidney disease patients from 690 dialysis facilities in the United States Renal Data System from January 1, 2012 through August 31, 2016, followed through February 2018 and linked data to referral and evaluation data from nine transplant centers in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Multivariable-adjusted competing risk analysis examined each outcome. The median within-facility cumulative percentage of patients referred for kidney transplantation within 1 year of dialysis at the 690 dialysis facilities in Network 6 was 33.7% (interquartile range [IQR]: 25.3%-43.1%). Only 48.3% of referred patients started the transplant evaluation within 6 months of referral. In multivariable analyses, factors associated with referral vs evaluation start among those referred at any time differed. For example, black, non-Hispanic patients had a higher rate of referral (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18-1.27), but lower evaluation start among those referred (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.88-0.98), vs white non-Hispanic patients. Barriers to transplant varied by step, and national surveillance data should be collected on early transplant steps to improve transplant access.

Primary Care Physicians' Perceived Barriers to Nephrology Referral and Co-management of Patients with CKD: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Effective co-management of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) between primary care physicians (PCPs) and nephrologists is increasingly recognized as a key strategy to ensure the delivery of efficient and high-quality CKD care. However, the co-management of patients with CKD remains suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify PCPs' perceptions of key barriers and facilitators to effective co-management of patients with CKD at the PCP-nephrology interface. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Community-based PCPs in four US cities: Baltimore, MD; St. Louis, MO; Raleigh, NC; and San Francisco, CA APPROACH: We conducted four focus groups of PCPs. Two members of the research team coded transcribed audio-recorded interviews and identified major themes. KEY RESULTS: Most of the 32 PCPs (59% internists and 41% family physicians) had been in practice for > 10 years (97%), spent ≥ 80% of their time in clinical care (94%), and practiced in private (69%) or multispecialty group practice (16%) settings. PCPs most commonly identified barriers to effective co-management of patients with CKD focused on difficulty developing working partnerships with nephrologists, including (1) lack of timely adequate information exchange (e.g., consult note not received or CKD care plan unclear); (2) unclear roles and responsibilities between PCPs and nephrologists; and (3) limited access to nephrologists (e.g., unable to obtain timely consultations or easily contact nephrologists with concerns). PCPs expressed a desire for "better communication tools" (e.g., shared electronic medical record) and clear CKD care plans to facilitate improved PCP-nephrology collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions facilitating timely adequate information exchange, clear delineation of roles and responsibilities between PCPs and nephrologists, and greater access to specialist advice may improve the co-management of patients with CKD.

Long-term outcomes among Medicare patients readmitted in the first year of hemodialysis: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Readmission within 30 days of hospital discharge is common and costly among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. Little is known about long-term outcomes after readmission. We estimated the association between hospital admissions and readmissions in the first year of dialysis and outcomes in the second year. METHODS: Data on incident dialysis patients with Medicare coverage were obtained from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS). Readmission patterns were summarized as no admissions in the first year of dialysis (Admit-), at least one admission but no readmissions within 30 days (Admit+/Readmit-), and admissions with at least one readmission within 30 days (Admit+/Readmit+).We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the association between readmission pattern and mortality, hospitalization, and kidney transplantation, accounting for demographic and clinical covariates. RESULTS: Among the 128,593 Medicare ESRD patients included in the study, 18.5% were Admit+/Readmit+, 30.5% were Admit+/Readmit-, and 51.0% were Admit-. Readmit+/Admit+ patients had substantially higher long-term risk of mortality (HR = 3.32 (95% CI, 3.21-3.44)), hospitalization (HR = 4.46 (95% CI, 4.36-4.56)), and lower likelihood of kidney transplantation (HR = 0.52 (95% CI, 0.44-0.62)) compared to Admit- patients; these associations were stronger than those among Admit+/Readmit- patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with readmissions in the first year of dialysis were at substantially higher risk of poor outcomes than either patients who had no admissions or patients who had hospital admissions but no readmissions. Identifying strategies to both prevent readmission and mitigate risk among patients who had a readmission may improve outcomes among this substantial, high-risk group of ESRD patients.

Delivery of a patient-friendly functioning report to improve patient-centeredness of dialysis care: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Provider recognition of level of functioning may be suboptimal in the dialysis setting, and this lack of recognition may lead to less patient-centered care. We aimed to assess whether delivery of an app-based, individualized functioning report would improve patients' perceptions of patient-centeredness of care. METHODS: In this pre-post pilot study at three outpatient dialysis facilities in metropolitan Atlanta, an individualized functioning report-including information on physical performance, perceived physical functioning, and community mobility-was delivered to patients receiving hemodialysis (n = 43) and their providers. Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to gather patient and provider feedback to develop and assess the report and app. Paired t test was used to test for differences in patient perception of patient-centeredness of care (PPPC) scores (range, 1 = most patient-centered to 4 = least patient-centered) 1 month after report delivery. RESULTS: Delivery of the reports to both patients and providers was not associated with a subsequent change in patients' perceptions of patient-centeredness of their care (follow-up vs. baseline PPPC scores of 2.35 vs. 2.36; P > 0.9). However, patients and providers generally saw the potential of the report to improve the patient-centeredness of care and reacted positively to the individualized reports delivered in the pilot. Patients also reported willingness to undergo future assessments. However, while two-thirds of surveyed providers reported always or sometimes discussing the reports they received, most (98%) participating patients reported that no one on the dialysis care team had discussed the report with them within 1 month. CONCLUSIONS: Potential lack of fidelity to the intervention precludes definitive conclusions about effects of the report on patient-centeredness of care. The disconnect between patients' and providers' perceptions of discussions of the report warrants future study. However, this study introduces a novel, individualized, multi-domain functional report that is easily implemented in the setting of hemodialysis. Our pilot study provides guidance for improving its use both clinically and in future pragmatic research studies, both within and beyond the dialysis population.

Racial/ethnic disparities in waitlisting for deceased donor kidney transplantation 1 year after implementation of the new national kidney allocation system.

The impact of a new national kidney allocation system (KAS) on access to the national deceased-donor waiting list (waitlisting) and racial/ethnic disparities in waitlisting among US end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is unknown. We examined waitlisting pre- and post-KAS among incident (N = 1 253 100) and prevalent (N = 1 556 954) ESRD patients from the United States Renal Data System database (2005-2015) using multivariable time-dependent Cox and interrupted time-series models. The adjusted waitlisting rate among incident patients was 9% lower post-KAS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-0.93), although preemptive waitlisting increased from 30.2% to 35.1% (P < .0001). The waitlisting decrease is largely due to a decline in inactively waitlisted patients. Pre-KAS, blacks had a 19% lower waitlisting rate vs whites (HR: 0.81; 95% CI, 0.80-0.82); following KAS, disparity declined to 12% (HR: 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.90). In adjusted time-series analyses of prevalent patients, waitlisting rates declined by 3.45/10 000 per month post-KAS (P < .001), resulting in ≈146 fewer waitlisting events/month. Shorter dialysis vintage was associated with greater decreases in waitlisting post-KAS (P < .001). Racial disparity reduction was due in part to a steeper decline in inactive waitlisting among minorities and a greater proportion of actively waitlisted minority patients. Waitlisting and racial disparity in waitlisting declined post-KAS; however, disparity remains.

Burden and correlates of readmissions related to pulmonary edema in US hemodialysis patients: a cohort study.

Background: Pulmonary edema is prevalent and may be a common cause of hospital readmissions in hemodialysis patients. We aimed to estimate the national burden of, and identify correlates of, readmissions related to pulmonary edema among hemodialysis patients. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study using national registry data, we identified prevalent US hemodialysis patients (n = 215 251) with index admissions while under Medicare primary coverage in 2011-13. We defined readmissions as admissions occurring within 30 days of the index discharge and pulmonary edema-related readmissions as readmissions with discharge diagnoses of fluid overload, heart failure or pulmonary edema. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine odds ratios (ORs) for pulmonary edema-related readmissions by patient and index admission characteristics. Results: About one-quarter (23%) of index hospital admissions were followed by a readmission, with nearly half (44%) of the readmissions being associated with pulmonary edema. The strongest independent correlate of pulmonary edema-related readmission was a pulmonary edema-related index admission [OR = 2.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.22-2.41]. With the exception of dialysis vintage <1 year (OR = 1.18; 95% CI 1.14-1.22), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 1.34; 95% CI 1.29-1.38), dialysis non-compliance (OR = 1.53; 95% CI 1.41-1.64) and congestive heart failure (OR = 1.85; 95% CI 1.77-1.93), patient characteristics were not generally associated with higher risk of pulmonary edema-related readmission. Conclusions: Readmissions related to pulmonary edema are common in hemodialysis patients. Interventions aimed at preventing such readmissions could have a substantial impact on readmissions overall, particularly targeted at incident hemodialysis patients with a prior history of heart failure and patients initially admitted for pulmonary edema.

Association of social worker-assessed psychosocial factors with 30-day hospital readmissions among hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the effect of psychosocial factors on hospital readmission in the setting of hemodialysis is limited. We examined whether social worker-assessed factors were associated with 30-day readmission among prevalent hemodialysis patients. METHODS: Data on 14 factors were extracted from the first available psychosocial assessment performed by social workers at three metropolitan Atlanta dialysis centers. Index admissions (first admission preceded by ≥30 days without a previous hospital discharge) were identified in the period 2/1/10-12/31/14, using linked national administrative hospitalization data. Readmission was defined as any admission within 30 days after index discharge. Associations of each of the psychosocial factors with readmission were assessed using multivariable logistic regression with adjustment for patient and index admission characteristics. RESULTS: Among 719 patients with index admissions, 22.1% were readmitted within 30 days. No psychosocial factors were statistically significantly associated with readmission risk. However, history of substance abuse vs. none was associated with a 29% higher risk of 30-day readmission [OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.75-2.23], whereas depression/anxiety was associated with 20% lower risk [OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.47-1.36]. Patients who were never married and those who were divorced, or widowed had 38 and 17% higher risk of 30-day readmission, respectively, than those who were married [OR: 1.38, 95% CI: 0.84-2.72; OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.73-1.90]. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that psychosocial issues may be associated with risk of 30-day readmission among dialysis patients. Despite the limitations of lack of generalizability and potential misclassification due to patient self-report of psychosocial factors to social workers, further study is warranted to determine whether addressing these factors through targeted interventions could potentially reduce readmissions among hemodialysis patients.

Post-hospitalization dialysis facility processes of care and hospital readmissions among hemodialysis patients: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Both dialysis facilities and hospitals are accountable for 30-day hospital readmissions among U.S. hemodialysis patients. We examined the association of post-hospitalization processes of care at hemodialysis facilities with pulmonary edema-related and other readmissions. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort comprised of electronic medical record (EMR) data linked with national registry data, we identified unique patient index admissions (n = 1056; 2/1/10-7/31/15) that were followed by ≥3 in-center hemodialysis sessions within 10 days, among patients treated at 19 Southeastern dialysis facilities. Indicators of processes of care were defined as present vs. absent in the dialysis facility EMR. Readmissions were defined as admissions within 30 days of the index discharge; pulmonary edema-related vs. other readmissions defined by discharge codes for pulmonary edema, fluid overload, and/or congestive heart failure. Multinomial logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for pulmonary edema-related and other vs. no readmissions. RESULTS: Overall, 17.7% of patients were readmitted, and 8.0% had pulmonary edema-related readmissions (44.9% of all readmissions). Documentation of the index admission (OR = 2.03, 95% CI 1.07-3.85), congestive heart failure (OR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.07-3.27), and home medications stopped (OR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.08-3.05) or changed (OR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.06-2.70) in the EMR post-hospitalization were all associated with higher risk of pulmonary edema-related vs. no readmission; lower post-dialysis weight (by ≥0.5 kg) after vs. before hospitalization was associated with 40% lower risk (OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that some interventions performed at the dialysis facility in the post-hospitalization period may be associated with reduced readmission risk, while others may provide a potential existing means of identifying patients at higher risk for readmissions, to whom such interventions could be efficiently targeted.

Early hospital readmission among hemodialysis patients in the United States is associated with subsequent mortality.

Dialysis providers in the United States may soon be held accountable for their patients' 30-day hospital readmissions. However, few studies have evaluated the timing of readmissions, which determines the window in which dialysis providers could act to prevent readmission. We therefore examined the timing of readmissions of hemodialysis patients in the United States and its association with mortality among 285,795 prevalent adult Medicare-primary hemodialysis patients from a national registry. Patients had at least one hospitalization in 2010-2013 (first index) and survived for 30 days or more. Readmission timing was defined as 0-7, 8-14, or 15-30 days after the index discharge. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association between readmission timing (referent no readmission) and mortality, censored at one year. Overall, 23.1% of patients had readmissions within 30 days of the index discharge, of which over one-third (35.9%) were within the first week. Regardless of timing, patients with readmissions had a higher risk of death within one year, compared to those with no readmissions, with hazard ratios of 2.04 (95% confidence interval 2.00-2.09) for being readmitted within 15-30 days; 1.98 (1.93-2.04) for being readmitted within 8-14 days; and 1.76 (1.71-1.80) for being readmitted within 0-7 days. Thus, opportunities for dialysis providers to intervene and prevent early readmission may be limited. Regardless of the timing, readmission appears independently associated with a substantially increased risk of mortality in this population.

Serious Fall Injuries Before and After Initiation of Hemodialysis Among Older ESRD Patients in the United States: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Because initiation of dialysis therapy often occurs in the setting of acute illness and may signal worsening health and functional decline, we examined whether rates of serious fall injuries among older hemodialysis patients differ before and after dialysis therapy initiation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of claims data from the 2 years spanning dialysis therapy initiation among patients initiating dialysis therapy in 2010 to 2012. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Claims from 81,653 Medicare end-stage renal disease beneficiaries aged 67 to 100 years. PREDICTOR: Post- versus pre-dialysis therapy initiation periods, defined as on or after versus before dialysis therapy initiation. OUTCOMES: Serious fall injuries were defined using diagnostic codes for falls in combination with fractures, brain injuries, or joint dislocation. Incidence rate ratios (overall and stratified) for post- versus pre-dialysis therapy initiation periods were estimated using generalized estimating equation models with a negative binomial link. RESULTS: Overall, 12,757 serious fall injuries occurred in the pre- and post-dialysis therapy initiation periods. Annual rates of serious fall injuries were 64.4 (95% CI, 62.7-66.2) and 107.8 (95% CI, 105.4-110.3) per 1,000 patient-years, respectively, in the pre- and post-dialysis therapy initiation periods (incidence rate ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.56-1.67). Relative rates of serious fall injuries in the post- vs pre-dialysis initiation periods were of greater magnitude among patients who were younger (<75 years), had pre-end-stage renal disease nephrology care, had albumin levels > 3g/dL, were able to walk and transfer, did not need assistance with activities of daily living, and were not institutionalized compared with relative rates among their counterparts. LIMITATIONS: Potential misclassification due to the use of claims data and survival bias among those initiating hemodialysis therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Among older Medicare beneficiaries receiving hemodialysis, serious fall injuries are common, the post-dialysis initiation period is a high-risk time for falls, and dialysis therapy initiation may be an important time to screen for fall risk factors and implement multifactorial fall prevention strategies.

Referral for Kidney Transplantation and Indicators of Quality of Dialysis Care: A Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis facility performance measures to improve access to kidney transplantation are being considered. Referral of patients for kidney transplantation evaluation by the dialysis facility is one potential indicator, but limited data exist to evaluate whether referral is associated with existing dialysis facility quality indicators. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 12,926 incident (July 2005 to September 2011) adult (aged 18-69 years) patients treated at 241 dialysis facilities with complete quality indicator information from US national registry data linked to transplantation referral data from all 3 Georgia kidney transplantation centers. FACTORS: Facility performance on dialysis quality indicators (high, intermediate, and low tertiles). OUTCOME: Percentages of patients referred within 1 year of dialysis therapy initiation at dialysis facility. RESULTS: Overall, a median of 25.4% of patients were referred for kidney transplantation within 1 year of dialysis therapy initiation. Higher facility-level referral was associated with better performance with respect to standardized transplantation ratio (high, 28.6%; intermediate, 25.1%; and low, 22.9%; P=0.001) and percentage waitlisted (high, 30.7%; intermediate, 26.8%; and low, 19.2%; P<0.001). Facility-level referral was not associated with indicators of quality of care associated with dialysis therapy initiation, including percentage of incident patients being informed of transplantation options. For most non-transplantation-related indicators of high-quality care, including those capturing mortality, morbidity, and anemia management, better performance was not associated with higher facility-level transplantation referral. LIMITATIONS: Potential ecologic fallacy and residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Transplantation referral among patients at dialysis facilities does not appear to be associated with overall quality of dialysis care at the facility. Quality indicators related to kidney transplantation were positively associated with, but not entirely correspondent with, higher percentages of patients referred for kidney transplantation evaluation from dialysis facilities. These results suggest that facility-level referral, which is within the control of the dialysis facility, may provide information about the quality of dialysis care beyond current indicators.

Comparison of vascular access outcomes in patients with end-stage renal disease attributed to systemic lupus erythematosus vs. other causes: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: U.S. hemodialysis patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are less likely than other ESRD patients to have a permanent vascular access (fistula or graft) in place at the dialysis start. We examined whether vascular access outcomes after dialysis start differed for SLE vs. other ESRD patients. METHODS: Among U.S. patients initiating hemodialysis in 2010 with only a catheter (n = 40,911; 384 with SLE) and using a permanent access on first dialysis (n = 13,073; 48 with SLE), we examined the association of SLE status with time to first placement of a permanent access (among catheter-only patients) and to loss of access patency (among patients using a permanent access on first dialysis), both censored 1 year after dialysis start, using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Among catheter-only patients, 46.1 % vs. 54.5 % of those with SLE-ESRD vs. other ESRD had a permanent access placed within 1 year after dialysis start. However, with adjustment, there was no association of 1-year placement with SLE status [HR = 1.00 (95 % CI, 0.86-1.17)]. SLE-ESRD vs. other ESRD patients starting dialysis with a permanent access were less likely to experience a 1-year loss of patency (43.8 % vs. 55.0 %), but this association was not statistically significant after adjustment [HR = 0.88 (0.57-1.37)]. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that SLE-ESRD patients starting dialysis with a catheter are not more likely to have a permanent access placed in the first year of dialysis, despite an observed lack of association of SLE status with subsequent loss of vascular access patency among those starting dialysis with a permanent access.

Comparison of quality-of-care measures in U.S. patients with end-stage renal disease secondary to lupus nephritis vs. other causes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) due to lupus nephritis (LN-ESRD) may be followed by multiple providers (nephrologists and rheumatologists) and have greater opportunities to receive recommended ESRD-related care. We aimed to examine whether LN-ESRD patients have better quality of ESRD care compared to other ESRD patients. METHODS: Among incident patients (7/05-9/11) with ESRD due to LN (n = 6,594) vs. other causes (n = 617,758), identified using a national surveillance cohort (United States Renal Data System), we determined the association between attributed cause of ESRD and quality-of-care measures (pre-ESRD nephrology care, placement on the deceased donor kidney transplant waitlist, and placement of permanent vascular access). Multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: LN-ESRD patients were more likely than other ESRD patients to receive pre-ESRD care (71% vs. 66%; OR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.57-1.78) and be placed on the transplant waitlist in the first year (206 vs. 86 per 1000 patient-years; HR = 1.42, 95% CI 1.34-1.52). However, only 24% had a permanent vascular access (fistula or graft) in place at dialysis start (vs. 36%; OR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.59-0.67). CONCLUSIONS: LN-ESRD patients are more likely to receive pre-ESRD care and have better access to transplant, but are less likely to have a permanent vascular access for dialysis, than other ESRD patients. Further studies are warranted to examine barriers to permanent vascular access placement, as well as morbidity and mortality associated with temporary access, in patients with LN-ESRD.