A comparison of self-reported quality of life for an Australian haemodialysis and haemodiafiltration cohort.

AIMS: Haemodiafiltration (HDF) has been widely studied for evidence of superior outcomes in comparison with conventional haemodialysis (HD), and there is increasing interest in determining if HDF confers any benefit in relation to quality of life. Studies have been conducted with randomized incident patients; however, little is known regarding HDF and quality of life for prevalent patients. This study examined and compared self-reported quality of life at two time points, 12 months apart in a cohort of satellite HD and HDF patients, using a disease specific questionnaire to determine if HDF conferred an advantage. METHODS: A longitudinal study with a linear mixed-effect model measuring quality of life in a cohort of 171 patients (HD, n = 85, HDF, n = 86) in seven South Australian satellite dialysis centres. RESULTS: Factors associated with significant reduction across the Kidney Disease Quality Of Life™ domains measured were younger age (- 20 to - 29) and comorbid diabetes (- 4.8 to - 11.1). HDF was not associated with moderation of this reduction at either time point (P > 0.05). Baseline physical functioning was reported as very low (median 33.9) and further reduced at time point two. In addition, dialysing for more than 12 h per week in a satellite dialysis unit was associated with reduced quality of life in relation to the burden of kidney disease (- 13.69). CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that younger age and comorbid diabetes were responsible for a statistically significant reduction in quality of life, and HDF did not confer any advantage.

The impact on patients of the tertiary-primary healthcare interface in kidney failure: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians and patients have reported fragmentation in the primary and tertiary healthcare interface. However, perspectives of service navigation and the impacts of fragmentation are not well defined, particularly for patients transitioning to dialysis. This study aimed to define patient perspectives of the functioning of the health service interface and impacts on healthcare experiences and engagement, informing patient-centred and outcomes-focused service models. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted through semi-structured interviews with 25 dialysis patients (16 males) aged 34-78 receiving dialysis across a multi-site tertiary service. Transcripts were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: (1) The Changing Nature of General Practitioner (GP) Patient Relationships; (2) Ownership and Leadership in Kidney Care; and (3) The Importance of Nephrologist-GP Communications. Patients perceived an unreliable primary-tertiary service interface which lacked coordinated care and created challenges for primary care continuity. These impacted perceptions of healthcare provider expertise and confidence in healthcare systems. Patients subsequently increased the healthcare sought from tertiary kidney clinicians. The fractured interface led some to coordinate communication between health sectors, to support care quality, but this caused additional stress. CONCLUSIONS: A fragmented primary-tertiary healthcare interface creates challenges for patient service navigation and can negatively impact patient experiences, leading to primary care disengagement, reduced confidence in health care quality and increased stress. Future studies are imperative for assessing initiatives facilitating health system integration, including communication technologies, healthcare provider training, patient empowerment, and specific outcomes in health, economic and patient experience measures, for patients transitioning to dialysis.