Conservative kidney management and kidney supportive care: core components of integrated care for people with kidney failure.

Integrated kidney care requires synergistic linkage between preventative care for people at risk for chronic kidney disease and health services providing care for people with kidney disease, ensuring holistic and coordinated care as people transition between acute and chronic kidney disease and the 3 modalities of kidney failure management: conservative kidney management, transplantation, and dialysis. People with kidney failure have many supportive care needs throughout their illness, regardless of treatment modality. Kidney supportive care is therefore a vital part of this integrated framework, but is nonexistent, poorly developed, and/or poorly integrated with kidney care in many settings, especially in low- and middle-income countries. To address this, the International Society of Nephrology has (i) coordinated the development of consensus definitions of conservative kidney management and kidney supportive care to promote international understanding and awareness of these active treatments; and (ii) identified key considerations for the development and expansion of conservative kidney management and kidney supportive care programs, especially in low resource settings, where access to kidney replacement therapy is restricted or not available. This article presents the definitions for conservative kidney management and kidney supportive care; describes their core components with some illustrative examples to highlight key points; and describes some of the additional considerations for delivering conservative kidney management and kidney supportive care in low resource settings.

Pain management and the use of opioids in adults with kidney failure receiving conservative kidney management.

Conservative kidney management (CKM) is an active treatment for kidney failure (KF) for people who will either not benefit from kidney replacement therapy (KRT), do not wish to pursue KRT, or do not have access to KRT. CKM aims to improve patients' quality-of-life through meticulous attention to symptom management. KF is associated with a high symptom burden globally that is experienced across age, sex, and race with chronic pain being one of the most severe and common symptoms. The delivery of CKM therefore requires the integration of effective pain management strategies. This review will provide a detailed insight into CKM globally and will offer an approach to pain management for people with KF who are receiving CKM. Specifically, this review will provide an overview of the clinical characteristics of people receiving CKM across both high and low resource settings and the epidemiology of pain in this population. While it will provide some high-level considerations for the non-pharmacologic management of pain, it will focus predominantly on pharmacologic approaches. This will include considerations of non-opioid analgesics and strategies for the use of opioids in people receiving CKM. Furthermore, we will explore global disparities in kidney care, CKM, and pain management resources, including access to opioids and will discuss some of the additional challenges faced in low resource settings.

Partnership-building considerations for implementation science in learning health systems: a case study of the Implementation Science Collaborative in Alberta, Canada.

Introduction: Implementation of health innovations is inherently collaborative, requiring trans-sectoral partnerships between implementation researchers, innovation teams, and implementation practitioners. Implementation science has been shown to improve implementation successes; however, challenges that hinder partnerships to advance implementation science continue to persist. Using a whole-system approach to assess and respond to implementation science partnership barriers may shed light on effective responses. Methods: We conducted a case study of Alberta's learning health system, using semi-structured group and individual interviews to create a nuanced understanding of the considerations required for implementation research collaborations. We interviewed 53 participants representing 21 offices in the health system, academia, professional associations, and government who regularly plan, evaluate, and/or study health system implementation initiatives in Alberta. Using the Partnership Model for Research Capacity Building, we identified current facilitators and challenges for partnerships for conducting and using implementation science, at different levels of Alberta's health-research ecosystem. Results: Alberta's healthcare system is well set up to readily embed intervention effectiveness and efficacy research. Infrastructure was also in place to strengthen implementation practice. However, weaknesses around exchanging knowledge and skills, providing feedback and mentoring, and accommodating diversity affected the ability of both individuals and teams to build implementation science capacity. Without this capacity, teams could not participate in embedded implementation research collaborations. We report the response of the Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research SUPPORT Unit to these barriers to provide practical guidance on various program options to strengthen individual- and organization-level implementation science capacity. Discussion: This study applied a whole-system approach to assess factors across Alberta's health-research ecosystem, which affect partnerships to advance implementation science. Our findings illustrated that partnership considerations go beyond interpersonal factors and include system-wide considerations. With the results, health organization leaders have (1) a method for assessing organizational capability to readily embed implementation research and (2) a catalog of potential responses to create conditions to readily engage with implementation science in their day-to-day implementation processes.

How to use communities of practice to support change in learning health systems: A landscape of roles and guidance for management.

Background: Communities of practice support evidence-based practice and can be, in and of themselves, applied learning spaces in organizations. However, the variety of ways that communities of practice can support learning health systems are poorly characterized. Furthermore, health system leaders have little guidance on designing and resourcing communities of practice to effectively serve learning health systems. Methods: We conducted a collective case study, examining a cross-section of Canadian-based communities of practice dedicated to supporting evidence-based practice. We held semi-structured interviews with 21 participants representing 16 communities of practice and 5 community of practice facilitation platforms that provide administration support, tools, and oversight for multiple communities of practice. Using the Conceptual Framework for Value-Creating Learning Health Systems, we characterized the numerous roles that communities of practice can take to support learning health systems. We also pulled insights from the interviews on properly resourcing and managing communities of practice. Results: Communities of practice can advance learning health systems across learning cycles (ie, identifying learning priorities, generating data and knowledge, and implementing and evaluating change). They also act as important infrastructure required to share and coordinate across learning health systems. Community of practice facilitation platforms reduce staff members' workload, in turn, creating greater efficiency and effectiveness across community of practice lifespans. Furthermore, these platforms can be a mechanism to coordinate critical activities (e.g., priority alignment, knowledge brokerage/sharing across the broader system). Conclusion: To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to characterize communities of practice across the learning health system landscape. With these results, learning health system leaders have a catalog that clarifies the potential communities of practice roles in knowledge generation, implementation, and uptake of new evidence. Furthermore, the results provide evidence that organizational investment in overarching community of practice facilitation platforms will strengthen and accelerate community of practice supports in learning health systems.

An update on the global disparities in kidney disease burden and care across world countries and regions.

BACKGROUND: Since 2015, the International Society of Nephrology (ISN) Global Kidney Health Atlas (ISN-GKHA) has spearheaded multinational efforts to understand the status and capacity of countries to provide optimal kidney care, particularly in low-resource settings. In this iteration of the ISN-GKHA, we sought to extend previous findings by assessing availability, accessibility, quality, and affordability of medicines, kidney replacement therapy (KRT), and conservative kidney management (CKM). METHODS: A consistent approach was used to obtain country-level data on kidney care capacity during three phases of data collection in 2016, 2018, and 2022. The current report includes a detailed literature review of published reports, databases, and registries to obtain information on the burden of chronic kidney disease and estimate the incidence and prevalence of treated kidney failure. Findings were triangulated with data from a multinational survey of opinion leaders based on the WHO's building blocks for health systems (ie, health financing, service delivery, access to essential medicines and health technology, health information systems, workforce, and governance). Country-level data were stratified by the ISN geographical regions and World Bank income groups and reported as counts and percentages, with global, regional, and income level estimates presented as medians with interquartile ranges. FINDINGS: The literature review used information on prevalence of chronic kidney disease from 161 countries. The global median prevalence of chronic kidney disease was 9·5% (IQR 5·9-11·7) with the highest prevalence in Eastern and Central Europe (12·8%, 11·9-14·1). For the survey analysis, responses received covered 167 (87%) of 191 countries, representing 97·4% (7·700 billion of 7·903 billion) of the world population. Chronic haemodialysis was available in 162 (98%) of 165 countries, chronic peritoneal dialysis in 130 (79%), and kidney transplantation in 116 (70%). However, 121 (74%) of 164 countries were able to provide KRT to more than 50% of people with kidney failure. Children did not have access to haemodialysis in 12 (19%) of 62 countries, peritoneal dialysis in three (6%) countries, or kidney transplantation in three (6%) countries. CKM (non-dialysis management of people with kidney failure chosen through shared decision making) was available in 87 (53%) of 165 countries. The annual median costs of KRT were: US$19 380 per person for haemodialysis, $18 959 for peritoneal dialysis, and $26 903 for the first year of kidney transplantation. Overall, 74 (45%) of 166 countries allocated public funding to provide free haemodialysis at the point of delivery; use of this funding scheme increased with country income level. The median global prevalence of nephrologists was 11·8 per million population (IQR 1·8-24·8) with an 80-fold difference between low-income and high-income countries. Differing degrees of health workforce shortages were reported across regions and country income levels. A quarter of countries had a national chronic kidney disease-specific strategy (41 [25%] of 162) and chronic kidney disease was recognised as a health priority in 78 (48%) of 162 countries. INTERPRETATION: This study provides new information about the global burden of kidney disease and its treatment. Countries in low-resource settings have substantially diminished capacity for kidney care delivery. These findings have major policy implications for achieving equitable access to kidney care. FUNDING: International Society of Nephrology.

Capacity for the management of kidney failure in the International Society of Nephrology North America and the Caribbean region: report from the 2023 ISN Global Kidney Health Atlas (ISN-GKHA).

The International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Health Atlas charts the availability and capacity of kidney care globally. In the North America and the Caribbean region, the Atlas can identify opportunities for kidney care improvement, particularly in Caribbean countries where structures for systematic data collection are lacking. In this third iteration, respondents from 12 of 18 countries from the region reported a 2-fold higher than global median prevalence of dialysis and transplantation, and a 3-fold higher than global median prevalence of dialysis centers. The peritoneal dialysis prevalence was lower than the global median, and transplantation data were missing from 6 of the 10 Caribbean countries. Government-funded payments predominated for dialysis modalities, with greater heterogeneity in transplantation payor mix. Services for chronic kidney disease, such as monitoring of anemia and blood pressure, and diagnostic capability relying on serum creatinine and urinalyses were universally available. Notable exceptions in Caribbean countries included non-calcium-based phosphate binders and kidney biopsy services. Personnel shortages were reported across the region. Kidney failure was identified as a governmental priority more commonly than was chronic kidney disease or acute kidney injury. In this generally affluent region, patients have better access to kidney replacement therapy and chronic kidney disease-related services than in much of the world. Yet clear heterogeneity exists, especially among the Caribbean countries struggling with dialysis and personnel capacity. Important steps to improve kidney care in the region include increased emphasis on preventive care, a focus on home-based modalities and transplantation, and solutions to train and retain specialized allied health professionals.