Nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment as decision-making tool in kidney failure.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis might not benefit all older patients with kidney failure, particularly those with multimorbid conditions and frailty. Patients' and healthcare professionals' awareness of the presence of geriatric impairments could improve outcomes by tailoring treatment plans and decisions for individual patients. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals on nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment to fuel decision-making for treatment choices in older patients with kidney failure. DESIGN: In an exploratory qualitative study using focus groups, participants discussed perspectives on the use and value of nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment for the decision-making process to start or forego dialysis. PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Patients (n = 18) with kidney failure, caregivers (n = 4), and professionals (n = 25) were purposively sampled from 10 hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and inductively analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged that supported or impeded decision-making in kidney failure: (1) patient psycho-social situation; (2) patient-related factors on modality choice; (3) organisation of health care. Patients reported feeling vulnerable due to multiple chronic conditions, old age, experienced losses in life and their willingness to trade longevity for quality of life. Professionals recognised the added value of nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment in three major themes: (i) facilitating continual holistic assessment, (ii) filling the knowledge gap, and (iii) uncovering important patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment was perceived as a valuable tool to identify geriatric impairments in older patients with kidney failure. Integration of its outcomes can facilitate a more holistic approach to inform choices and decisions about kidney replacement therapy.

Discussing results of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between patients and healthcare professionals in routine dialysis care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide insight into patients' experienced health and needs, and can improve patient-professional communication. However, little is known about how to discuss PROM results. This study aimed to provide in-depth knowledge of patients' and healthcare professionals' experiences with and perspectives on discussing PROM results as part of routine dialysis care. DESIGN: A qualitative study was performed using an interpretive description approach. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with 22 patients and healthcare professionals. Interviews focused on general and specific situations (eg, addressing sensitive topics or when no medical treatment is available). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively using thematic analysis. SETTING: Participants were purposively sampled from eight dialysis centres across the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Interviews were conducted with 10 patients receiving dialysis treatment and 12 healthcare professionals (nephrologists and nurses). RESULTS: Patients and healthcare professionals provided practical guidance for optimal discussion about PROM results. First, patients and healthcare professionals emphasised that PROM results should always be discussed and indicated how to create a suitable setting, adequately prepare, deal with time constraints and use PROMs as a tool for personalised holistic consultations. Second, patients should actively participate and healthcare professionals should take a guiding role. A trusting patient-professional relationship was considered a prerequisite and patient-professional interaction was described as a collaboration in which both contribute their knowledge, experiences and ideas. Third, follow-up after discussing PROM results was considered important, including evaluations and actions (eg, symptom management) structurally embedded into the multidisciplinary treatment process. These general themes also applied to the specific situations, for example: results should also be discussed when no medical treatment is available. Though, healthcare professionals were expected to take more initiative and a leading role when discussing sensitive topics. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into how to organise and conduct conversations about PROM results and lays the foundation for training healthcare professionals to optimally discuss PROM results in routine nephrology care. Further research is needed to provide guidance on follow-up actions in response to specific PROM results.

Experiences with and attitudes towards geriatric screening among older emergency department patients: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The patient perspective on the use of screening for high risks of adverse health outcomes in Emergency Department (ED) care is underexposed, although it is an important perspective influencing implementation in routine care. This study explores the experiences with, and attitudes towards geriatric screening in routine ED care among older people who visited the ED. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Interviews were conducted in older patients (≥70 years) who completed the 'Acutely Presenting Older Patient' screener while visiting the ED of a Dutch academic hospital. Purposive convenience sampling was used to select a heterogeneous sample of participants regarding age, disease severity and the result from screening. Transcripts were analyzed inductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: After 13 interviews (7 women, median age 82 years), data saturation was reached. The participants had noticed little of the screening administration during triage and screening was considered as a normal part of ED care. Most participants believed that geriatric screening contributes to assessing older patients holistically, recognizing geriatric problems early and comforting patients with communication and attention. None of the participants had a negative attitude towards screening or thought that screening is discrimination on age. Care providers should communicate respectfully with frail older patients and involve them in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Older patients experienced geriatric screening as a normal part of ED care and had predominantly positive attitudes towards its use in the ED. This qualitative study advocates for continuing the implementation of geriatric screening in routine ED practice.