Telehealth for Home Dialysis in COVID-19 and Beyond: A Perspective From the American Society of Nephrology COVID-19 Home Dialysis Subcommittee.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, technological advancements, regulatory waivers, and user acceptance have converged to boost telehealth activities. Due to the state of emergency, regulatory waivers in the United States have made it possible for providers to deliver and bill for services across state lines for new and established patients through Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)- and non-HIPAA-compliant platforms with home as the originating site and without geographic restrictions. Platforms have been developed or purchased to perform videoconferencing, and interdisciplinary dialysis teams have adapted to perform virtual visits. Telehealth experiences and challenges encountered by dialysis providers, clinicians, nurses, and patients have exposed health care disparities in areas such as access to care, bandwidth connectivity, availability of devices to perform telehealth, and socioeconomic and language barriers. Future directions in telehealth use, quality measures, and research in telehealth use need to be explored. Telehealth during the public health emergency has changed the practice of health care, with the post-COVID-19 world unlikely to resemble the prior era. The future impact of telehealth in patient care in the United States remains to be seen, especially in the context of the Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative.

Policy and Pandemic: The Changing Practice of Nephrology During the Coronavirus Disease-2019 Outbreak.

The coronavirus (coronavirus disease-2019) pandemic has changed care delivery for patients with end-stage kidney disease. We explore the US healthcare system as it pertains to dialysis care, including existing policies, modifications implemented in response to the coronavirus disease-2019 crisis, and possible next steps for policy makers and nephrologists. This includes policies related to resource management, use of telemedicine, prioritization of dialysis access procedures, expansion of home dialysis modalities, administrative duties, and quality assessment. The government has already established policies that have instated some flexibilities to help providers focus their response to the crisis. However, future policy during and after the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic can bolster our ability to optimize care for patients with end-stage kidney disease. Key themes in this perspective are the importance of policy flexibility, clear strategies for emergency preparedness, and robust health systems that maximize accessibility and patient autonomy.

Follow-up management strategy for patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis during novel coronavirus pneumonia epidemic.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to explore the best follow-up management strategy for patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD) during the novel coronavirus pneumonia (NCP) epidemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing PD who were followed up during the NCP epidemic by our hospital were enrolled in this study. Because of the need to control the epidemic, a follow-up system was established during the epidemic period, with WeChat, QQ, and the telephone as the main methods of communication. Outpatient and emergency follow-ups were carried out to ensure the safety of dialysis and the prevention and control of the epidemic. The follow-up strategy included response measures related to the epidemic situation, prevention of peritonitis related to PD, water and salt control, exercise guidance, and psychological care. According to the patient's condition, the appointment system was implemented, with one consulting room and one process for each patient. The emergency patients were isolated in accordance with the epidemic situation. RESULTS: Since January 2020, among the 580 patients undergoing PD who were followed up in our department and their families, none had NCP infection. During the epidemic period, the standard hemoglobin level and the inpatient rate decreased. Complications related to PD, such as peritonitis, cardiovascular complications caused by volume overload, and pulmonary infection, did not significantly increase, and the withdrawal rate and mortality rate decreased compared with those in the same period last year. CONCLUSIONS: The patient follow-up strategy during the epidemic period had a significant positive effect on preventing and controlling the epidemic. Furthermore, during the epidemic period, encouraging patients and caregivers to pay attention to protection at home, avoid going out, strengthen self-management, and other measures were beneficial to the control of kidney disease itself, which is worth promoting. The close relationship between doctors and patients during the epidemic had a positive effect on the occurrence of complications related to patients undergoing PD.

Early Delays in Insurance Coverage and Long-term Use of Home-based Peritoneal Dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Uninsured patients with end-stage renal disease face barriers to peritoneal dialysis (PD), a type of home dialysis that is associated with improved quality of life and reduced Medicare costs. Although uninsured patients using PD at dialysis start receive retroactive Medicare coverage for required predialysis services, coverage only applies for the calendar month of dialysis start. Thus, initiating dialysis later in the month yields longer retroactive coverage. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether differences in retroactive Medicare were associated with decreased long-term PD use. RESEARCH DESIGN: We exploited the dialysis start date using a regression discontinuity design on a national cohort from the US Renal Data System. SUBJECTS: 36,256 uninsured adults starting dialysis between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2014. MEASURES: PD use at dialysis days 1, 90, 180, and 360. RESULTS: Starting dialysis on the first versus last day of the calendar month was associated with an absolute decrease in PD use of 2.7% [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.5%-3.9%], or a relative decrease of 20% (95% CI, 12%-27%) at dialysis day 360. The absolute decrease was 5.5% (95% CI, 3.5%-7.2%) after Medicare established provider incentives for PD in 2011 and 7.2% (95% CI, 2.5%-11.9%) after Medicaid expansion in 2014. Patients were unlikely to switch from hemodialysis to PD after the first month of dialysis (probability of 6.9% in month 1, 1.5% in month 2, and 0.9% in month 4). CONCLUSIONS: Extending retroactive coverage for preparatory dialysis services could increase PD use and reduce overall Medicare spending in the uninsured.

Experiences of safety among patients receiving home dialysis therapies.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis patients' experience of safety can be seen positively connected with their wellbeing and successful outcomes of their treatment and care. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the factors promoting and weakening the safety experiences and create a basis for empowering interventions. OBJECTIVES: Analyse patients' experiences of safety with dialysis and the factors promoting and weakening their safety. METHODS: A descriptive study design was used. This study analysed Finnish patients' (n = 70) experiences of safety with dialysis and the factors promoting and weakening patients' safety. Data were collected using a questionnaire including one structured question and two open questions. FINDINGS: The patients experienced their care as safe. Thematic analysis provided three factors promoting patients' safety: certainty of patient's own competence in dialysis self-management, competence of personnel in dialysis treatment and care, continuity of ensuring patients' state of health, as well as three factors weakening safety: patients' uncertainty of living with chronic kidney disease, insufficient patient education and uncertain realisation of dialysis treatment and care. CONCLUSION: This study provided new insight into understanding patients' experiences of safety with dialysis. We show that the factors connected with patients' safety were related to the successful realisation of self-management, support for the self-management, and delivery of dialysis treatment and care anticipating high-level outcomes. In light of this study, there are development needs in dialysis treatment and care as a whole in order to ensure patients' safety.

Improving home haemodialysis: Stability evaluation of routine clinical chemistry analytes in blood samples of haemodialysis patients.

INTRODUCTION: A growing number of dialysis patients is treated with home haemodialysis. Our current pre-analytical protocols require patients to centrifuge the blood sample and transfer the plasma into a new tube at home. This procedure is prone to errors and precludes accurate bicarbonate measurement, required for determining dialysate bicarbonate concentration and maintaining acid-base status. We therefore evaluated whether cooled overnight storage of gel separated plasma is an acceptable alternative. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Venous blood of 34 haemodialysis patients was collected in 2 lithium heparin blood collection tubes with gel separator (LH PSTTM II, REF 367374; Becton Dickinson, New Jersey, USA). One tube was analysed directly for measurement of bicarbonate, potassium, calcium, phosphate, glucose, urea, lactate, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and lactate dehydrogenase (LD); whereas the other was centrifuged and stored unopened at 4 °C and analysed 24 h later. To measure analyte stability after 24 h of storage, the mean difference was calculated and compared to the total allowable error (TEa) which was used as acceptance limit. RESULTS: Potassium (Z = - 4.28, P < 0.001), phosphate (Z = - 3.26, P = 0.001), lactate (Z = - 5.11, P < 0.001) and AST (Z = - 2.71, P = 0.007) concentrations were higher, whereas glucose (Z = 4.00, P < 0.001) and LD (Z = 3.13, P = 0.002) showed a reduction. All mean differences were smaller than the TEa and thus not clinically relevant. Bicarbonate (Z = 0.69, P = 0.491), calcium (Z = - 0.23, P = 0.815) and urea (Z = 0.81, P =0.415) concentrations were stable. CONCLUSIONS: Our less complex, user-friendly pre-analytical procedure resulted in at least 24 h stability of analytes relevant for monitoring haemodialysis, including bicarbonate. This allows shipment and analysis the next day.

Fewer hospitalizations and prolonged technique survival with home hemodialysis- a matched cohort study from the Swedish Renal Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients on home hemodialysis (HHD) exhibit superior survival compared with patients on institutional hemodialysis (IHD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). There is a sparsity of reports comparing morbidity between HHD and IHD or PD and none in a European population. The aim of this study is to compare morbidity between modalities in a Swedish population. METHODS: The Swedish Renal Registry was used to retrieve patients starting on HHD, IHD or PD. Patients were matched according to sex, age, comorbidity and start date. The Swedish Inpatient Registry was used to determine comorbidity before starting renal replacement therapy (RRT) and hospital admissions during RRT. Dialysis technique survival was compared between HHD and PD. RESULTS: RRT was initiated with HHD for 152 patients; these were matched with 608 patients with IHD and 456 with PD. Patients with HHD had significantly lower annual admission rate and number of days in hospital. (median 1.7 admissions; 12 days) compared with IHD (2.2; 14) and PD (2.8; 20). The annual admission rate was significantly lower for patients with HHD compared with IHD for cardiovascular diagnoses and compared with PD for infectious disease diagnoses. Dialysis technique survival was significantly longer with HHD compared with PD. CONCLUSIONS: Patients choosing HHD as initial RRT spend less time in hospital compared with patients on IHD and PD and they were more likely than PD patients, to remain on their initial modality. These advantages, in combination with better survival and higher likelihood of renal transplantation, are important incentives for promoting the use of HHD.

A Perspective on the Current Status of Home Hemodialysis.

Most hemodialysis (HD) in Japan is based on the central dialysis fluid delivery system (CDDS). With CDDS, there is an improvement in work efficiency, reduction in cost, and a reduction in regional and institutional differences in dialysis conditions. This has resulted in an improvement in the survival rate throughout Japan. However, as the number of cases with various complications increases, it is necessary to select the optimal dialysis prescription (including hours and frequency) for each individual in order to further improve survival rates. To perform intensive HD, home HD is essential, and various prescriptions have been tried. However, several challenges remain before widespread implementation of home HD can occur.

Home Hemodialysis: Benefits, Risks, and Barriers.

Home hemodialysis (HHD) has been available as a modality of renal replacement therapy since the 1960s. HHD allows intensive dialysis such as nocturnal hemodialysis or short daily hemodialysis. Previous studies have shown that patients receiving HHD have an increased survival and better quality of life compared with those receiving in-center conventional HD. However, HHD may increase the risk for specific complications such as vascular access complications, infection, loss of residual kidney function and patient and caregiver burden. In Japan, only 529 patients (0.2% of the total dialysis patients) were on maintenance HHD at the end of 2014. The most commonly perceived barriers to intensive HHD included lack of patient motivation, unwillingness to change from in-center modality, and fear of self-cannulation. However, these barriers can often be overcome by adequate predialysis education, motivational training of patient and caregiver, nurse-assisted cannulation, nurse-led home visits, a well-defined nursing/technical support system for patients, and provision of respite care.

Clinical safety and performance of VIVIA: a novel home hemodialysis system.

Background: The VIVIA Hemodialysis System (Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, IL, USA) was designed for patient use at home to reduce the burden of treatment and improve patient safety. It has unique features including extended use of the dialyzer and blood set through in situ hot-water disinfection between treatments; generation of on-line infusible-quality dialysate for automated priming, rinseback and hemodynamic support during hypotension and a fully integrated access disconnect sensor. Methods: The safety and performance of VIVIA were assessed in two clinical studies. A first-in-man study was a prospective, single-arm study that involved 22 prevalent hemodialysis (HD) patients who were treated for ∼4 h, four times a week, for 10 weeks. A second clinical study was a prospective, single-arm study (6-8 h of dialysis treatment at night three times a week) that involved 17 prevalent patients treated for 6 weeks. Results: There were 1114 treatments from the two studies (first-in-man study, 816; extended duration study, 298). Adverse events (AEs) were similar in the two studies to those expected for prevalent HD patients. No deaths and no device-related serious AEs occurred. Adequacy of dialysis ( Kt / V ) urea in both clinical trials was well above the clinical guidelines. VIVIA performed ultrafiltration accurately as prescribed in the two studies. The majority of patients achieved 10 or more uses of the dialyzer. Endotoxin levels and bacterial dialysate sampling met infusible-quality dialysate standards. Conclusion: These results confirm the safety and expected performance of VIVIA.

Home- or Institutional Hemodialysis? - a Matched Pair-Cohort Study Comparing Survival and Some Modifiable Factors Related to Survival.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Survival for dialysis patients is poor. Earlier studies have shown better survival in home-hemodialysis (HHD). The aims of this study are to compare survival for matched patients with HHD and institutional hemodialysis (IHD) and to elucidate the effect on factors related to survival such as hyperphosphatemia, fluid overload and anemia. METHODS: In this retrospective, observational study, incident patients starting HHD and IHD were matched according to sex, age, comorbidity and date of start. Survival analysis was performed both as "intention to treat" including renal transplantation and "on treatment" with censoring at the date of transplantation. Dialysis doses, laboratory parameters and prescriptions of medications were compared. RESULTS: After matching, 41 pairs of patients, with HHD and IHD, were included. Survival among HHD patients was longer compared with IHD, median survival being 17.3 and 13.0 years (p=0.016), respectively. The "on treatment" analysis, also favoured HHD (p=0.015). HHD patients had lower phosphate, 1.5 mmol/L compared with 2.1 mmol/L (p<0.001) and no antihypertensives and diuretics compared with 2 for IHD patients at 6 (p=0.001) and 18 months (p=0.014). There were no differences in hemoglobin or albumin. CONCLUSION: HHD shows better survival compared with IHD, also after controlling for patient selection. This could be caused by better phosphate and/or fluid balance associated with higher dialysis doses.

How to Diagnose Solutions to a Quality of Care Problem.

To change a particular quality of care outcome within a system, quality improvement initiatives must first understand the causes contributing to the outcome. After the causes of a particular outcome are known, changes can be made to address these causes and change the outcome. Using the example of home dialysis (home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis), this article within this Moving Points feature on quality improvement will provide health care professionals with the tools necessary to analyze the steps contributing to certain outcomes in health care quality and develop ideas that will ultimately lead to their resolution. The tools used to identify the main contributors to a quality of care outcome will be described, including cause and effect diagrams, Pareto analysis, and process mapping. We will also review common change concepts and brainstorming activities to identify effective change ideas. These methods will be applied to our home dialysis quality improvement project, providing a practical example that other kidney health care professionals can replicate at their local centers.

How to Begin a Quality Improvement Project.

Quality improvement involves a combined effort among health care staff and stakeholders to diagnose and treat problems in the health care system. However, health care professionals often lack training in quality improvement methods, which makes it challenging to participate in improvement efforts. This article familiarizes health care professionals with how to begin a quality improvement project. The initial steps involve forming an improvement team that possesses expertise in the quality of care problem, leadership, and change management. Stakeholder mapping and analysis are useful tools at this stage, and these are reviewed to help identify individuals who might have a vested interest in the project. Physician engagement is a particularly important component of project success, and the knowledge that patients/caregivers can offer as members of a quality improvement team should not be overlooked. After a team is formed, an improvement framework helps to organize the scientific process of system change. Common quality improvement frameworks include Six Sigma, Lean, and the Model for Improvement. These models are contrasted, with a focus on the Model for Improvement, because it is widely used and applicable to a variety of quality of care problems without advanced training. It involves three steps: setting aims to focus improvement, choosing a balanced set of measures to determine if improvement occurs, and testing new ideas to change the current process. These new ideas are evaluated using Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, where knowledge is gained by testing changes and reflecting on their effect. To show the real world utility of the quality improvement methods discussed, they are applied to a hypothetical quality improvement initiative that aims to promote home dialysis (home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis). This provides an example that kidney health care professionals can use to begin their own quality improvement projects.

Funding and planning: what you need to know for starting or expanding a home hemodialysis program.

Planning and funding a home hemodialysis (HD) program requires a well-organized effort and close collaboration between clinicians and administrators. This resource provides guidance on the processes that are involved, including a thorough situational analysis of the dialysis landscape, emphasizing the opportunity for a home HD program; careful consideration of the clinical and operational characteristics of a proposed home HD program at your institution; the development of a compelling business case, highlighting the clinical and organizational benefits of a home HD program; and careful construction and evaluation of a request for proposal.

Home hemodialysis needs you!

This special supplement of Hemodialysis International focuses on home hemodialysis (HD). It has been compiled by a group of international experts in home HD who were brought together throughout 2013-2014 to construct a home HD "manual." Drawing upon both the literature and their own extensive expertise, these experts have helped develop this supplement that now stands as an A-to-Z guide for any who may be unfamiliar or uncertain about how to establish and maintain a successful home HD program.

Workforce development and models of care in home hemodialysis.

Creating and maintaining a successful home hemodialysis (HD) program is highly dependent on the workforce model and quality of staff. We describe the minimum staff required to start a home HD program (e.g., a clinical champion and lead nurse) and detail what additional workforce (e.g., renal technician, dietitian, psychologist, and others) may be necessary as the program evolves and expands. The goal of the program and allied staff should be to provide a seamless patient journey, a process that requires consideration of a patient recruitment strategy, a patient training pathway, thoughtful initiation of home HD, and development of support systems for routine care and emergencies at home. This module describes how care models are implemented at centers of excellence in various locations around the world, highlights the importance of an integrated care pathway, and describes workforce challenges that programs may encounter.

Systems to cultivate suitable patients for home dialysis.

The key to developing, initiating, and maintaining a strong home dialysis program is a fundamental commitment by the entire team to identify and cultivate patients who are suitable candidates to perform home dialysis. This process must start as early as possible in the disease trajectory, and must include a passionate and daily focus by physicians, nurses, social workers, and other members of the multidisciplinary team. This effort must be constant and sustained over months, with active promotion of home dialysis for suitable patients at every opportunity. Cultivation of suitable patients must become a defining and overarching mission for the entire program. This article reviews some of the components involved in this worthwhile effort and provides practical tips and links to resources.

The home hemodialysis hub: physical infrastructure and integrated governance structure.

An effective home hemodialysis program critically depends on adequate hub facilities and support functions and on transparent and accountable organizational processes. The likelihood of optimal service delivery and patient care will be enhanced by fit-for-purpose facilities and implementation of a well-considered governance structure. In this article, we describe the required accommodation and infrastructure for a home hemodialysis program and a generic organizational structure that will support both patient-facing clinical activities and business processes.