Decisional needs in people with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals about end-of-life care options: A qualitative interview study.

AIM: To investigate the decisional needs in Denmark of people with kidney failure, relatives, and health professionals when planning end-of-life care. DESIGN: A qualitative interview study. METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews were carried out with people with kidney failure, relatives and health professionals from November 2021 to June 2022. Malterud's systematic text condensation was used to analyse transcripts. RESULTS: A total of 13 patients, 10 relatives, and 12 health professionals were interviewed. Overall, four concepts were agreed on: (1) Talking about end of life is difficult, (2) Patients and relatives need more knowledge and information, (3) Health professionals need more tools and training, and (4) Experiencing busyness as a barrier to conversations about end of life. CONCLUSION: People with kidney failure, relatives, and health professionals shared certain decisional needs while also having some different decisional needs about end-of-life care. To meet these various needs, end-of-life conversations should be systematic and organized according to the patients' needs and wishes. IMPACT: Non-systematic end-of-life care decision-making processes limit patients' involvement. Patients and relatives need more knowledge about end-of-life care, and health professionals need more competences and time to discuss decisional needs. A shared decision-making intervention for people with kidney failure when making end-of-life care decisions will be developed. REPORTING METHOD: This empirical qualitative research is reported according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients, relatives, and health professionals have been involved throughout the research process as part of the research team and advisory board. The patients are people with kidney failure and the relatives are relatives of a person with kidney failure. For this study, the advisory board has particularly contributed to the validation of the invitation letter for participation, the interview guides and the preparation of the manuscript.

Shared decision making for patients with kidney failure to improve end-of-life care: Development of the DESIRE intervention.

AIM: To describe the development of a shared decision making intervention for planning end-of-life care for patients with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals in kidney services. BACKGROUND: End-of-life care conversations within standard disease management consultations are challenging for patients with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals. End-of-life care planning is about making difficult decisions in advance, which is why health professionals need shared decision making skills to be able to initiate end-of-life conversations. Health professionals report needing more skills to raise the issue of end-of-life care options within consultations and patients want to be able to discuss issues important to them about future care plans. METHODS: The development design was guided by the UK Medical Research Council's framework and a user-centred approach was applied. Four workshops were conducted with end users. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication for Population Health and Policy interventions was used to shape which questions needed to be answered through the workshops and to present the intervention. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) criteria set the standards to be achieved. RESULTS: Areas considered significant to a shared decision making intervention were training of health professionals, conversations about end-of-life care, planning and evaluation of the decisions, reporting decisions in health records and repetition of consultation. The development process went through 14 iterations. CONCLUSION: An intervention named DESIRE was developed that comprises: (1) a training programme for health professionals; (2) shared decision making conversations; and (3) a patient decision aid. The intervention met 30 out of 33 IPDAS criteria. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: DESIRE is intended to support shared decision making about planning end-of-life care among patients with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals. The study provides important tools for the stakeholders engaged that can be used within different models of care. IMPACT: What problem did the study address? International guidelines recommend health professionals involve patients with kidney failure in making decisions about end-of-life care, but there is variation in how this is implemented within and across kidney services. Furthermore, patients, relatives and health professionals find it challenging to initiate conversations about end-of-life care. What were the main findings? The study resulted in the development of a complex intervention, called DESIRE, about shared decision making and planning end-of-life care for patients with kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals in kidney services, including a training programme for health professionals, shared decision making conversations and a patient decision aid. Where and on whom will the research have an impact? The research contributes a shared decision making intervention to patients in the later stage of kidney failure, their relatives and health professionals. We believe that the DESIRE intervention could be introduced during consultations with health professionals at an earlier stage of the patient's illness trajectory, as well as being applied to other chronic diseases. REPORTING METHOD: This intervention development research is reported according to the GUIDance for the rEporting of intervention Development (GUIDED) checklist and the DEVELOPTOOLS Reporting Checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients, relatives and health professionals have been involved throughout the research process as part of the research team and advisory board. For this study, the advisory board has particularly contributed to the development process of the DESIRE intervention by actively participating in the four workshops, in the iterations between the workshops and in the preparation of the manuscript.

Does conservative kidney management offer a quantity or quality of life benefit compared to dialysis? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD5) collaborate with their clinicians when choosing their future treatment modality. Most elderly patients with CKD5 may only have two treatment options: dialysis or conservative kidney management (CKM). The objective of this systematic review was to investigate whether CKM offers a quantity or quality of life benefit compared to dialysis for some patients with CKD5. METHODS: The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were systematically searched for studies comparing patients with CKD5 who had chosen or were treated with either CKM or dialysis. The primary outcomes were mortality and quality of life (QoL). Hospitalization, symptom burden, and place of death were secondary outcomes. For studies reporting hazard ratios, pooled values were calculated, and forest plots conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-five primary studies, all observational, were identified. All studies reported an increased mortality in patients treated with CKM (pooled hazard ratio 0.47, 95 % confidence interval 0.34-0.65). For patients aged ≥ 80 years and for elderly individuals with comorbidities, results were ambiguous. In most studies, CKM seemed advantageous for QoL and secondary outcomes. Findings were limited by the heterogeneity of studies and biased outcomes favouring dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: In general, patients with CKD5 who have chosen or are on CKM live for a shorter time than patients who have chosen or are on dialysis. In patients aged ≥ 80 years old, and in elderly individuals with comorbidities, the survival benefits of dialysis seem to be lost. Regarding QoL, symptom burden, hospitalization, and place of death, CKM may have advantages. Higher quality studies are needed to guide patients and clinicians in the decision-making process.

Involvement of patients in the research process.

Healthcare research emphasises involvement of patients in the research process, recognizing that this can enhance the relevance, quality, and implementation of research. This article highlights the need for more systematic planning to successfully involve patients in research projects and provides guidance on key aspects that researchers should consider in the planning of involving patients in research. The article accentuates the importance of establishing clear frameworks and guidelines to promote transparency and facilitate implementation.

Decision coaching for people with kidney failure: A case study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the usefulness of decision coaching for people with kidney failure facing decisions about end-of-life care. OBJECTIVES: To investigate experiences of people with kidney failure who received decision coaching for end-of-life care decisions. DESIGN: We conducted a prospective case study bound by time (September to December 2021), location (one nephrology department), and guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with kidney failure facing end-of-life care decisions. MEASUREMENTS: A nurse trained in decision coaching screened for unmet decisional needs with the SURE test and provided decision coaching using the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide. Postcoaching, the participants were rescreened using the SURE test and interviewed to explore their experience with decision coaching. Change in SURE test findings was analysed descriptively and systematic text condensation was used for the analysis of interviews. Recorded decision coaching sessions underwent content analysis using the Decision Support Analysis Tool. RESULTS: Decision coaching was provided to four adults with kidney failure. Median pre-SURE test score was 2.5 (range 2-4) and posttest score was 3 (range 3-4), indicating a decrease in decisional needs. Participants described that decision coaching provided an overview of features of options to consider, identified remaining decisional needs for further discussion with relatives and health professionals and clarified next steps. Median Decision Support Analysis Tool score was 9 (range 8-9). CONCLUSIONS: After decision coaching, results suggest that the participants experienced fewer decisional needs and seemed clearer about the next steps in the decision making process.

Patient involvement interventions for patients with kidney failure making end-of-life care decisions: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to investigate and map empirical evidence of patient involvement interventions to support patients with kidney failure making end-of-life care decisions in kidney services. INTRODUCTION: Clinical guidance integrating end-of-life care within kidney failure management pathways varies. Advance care planning interventions aimed at involving patients with kidney failure in their end-of-life care planning are established in some countries. However, there is limited evidence of the other types of patient involvement interventions integrated within services to support patients with kidney failure in making decisions about their end-of-life care. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review included studies exploring patient involvement interventions evaluated for patients with kidney failure considering end-of-life care, their relatives, and/or health professionals in kidney services. Studies of children under the age of 18 years were excluded. METHODS: The review was informed by JBI methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Review guidelines. MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for full-text studies in English, Danish, German, Norwegian, or Swedish. Two independent reviewers assessed the literature against the inclusion criteria. A relational analysis framework was used to synthesize the data extracted from the included studies, and to investigate and map different patient involvement interventions. RESULTS: The search identified 1628 articles, of which 33 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 23 interventions were described. Interventions targeted patients (n=3); health professionals (n=8); patients and health professionals (n=5); and patients, relatives, and health professionals (n=7). Intervention components included patient resources (eg, information, patient decision aids), consultation resources (eg, advance care planning, shared decision-making), and practitioner resources (eg, communication training). Patient involvement interventions were delivered within hospital-based kidney services. CONCLUSIONS: The review identified several ways to support patients with kidney failure to be involved in end-of-life care decisions. Future interventions may benefit from adopting a complex intervention framework to engage multiple stakeholders in the research and design of an intervention for shared decision-making between patients with kidney failure, their relatives, and health professionals about integrating end-of-life care options into their kidney disease management pathway.

Mapping the empirical evidence on patient involvement interventions in patients with end-stage kidney disease making end-of-life care decisions: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to investigate and map existing empirical evidence on patient involvement interventions helping patients with end-stage kidney disease to make end-of-life care decisions about kidney services. INTRODUCTION: Patients with end-stage kidney disease have a high disease burden and mortality rate. Despite this, kidney services differ in how they offer and integrate end-of-life care, if it is offered at all. Some countries have established advance care planning protocols to encourage patient involvement when offering end-of-life care options as part of end-stage kidney disease care. However, there is a limited understanding of the components of patient involvement interventions designed to support patients with end-stage kidney disease making decisions about end-of-life care. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The review will consider studies on patient involvement interventions concerning end-of-life care decisions for patients with end-stage kidney disease. A broad definition of patient involvement interventions will be used. Studies on interventions that do not involve patients or relatives will be excluded. The review will focus on interventions applied to kidney health care and other services, such as community-based health care. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL will be searched. The literature will be screened for inclusion by two independent reviewers. Data synthesis will be conducted through relational analysis investigating patient involvement interventions and relevant information in line with the review objective and questions. Data will be extracted and listed in the data extraction instruments, accompanied by a narrative summary describing how the results relate to the review objective.

Shared decision-making and planning end-of-life care for patients with end-stage kidney disease: a protocol for developing and testing a complex intervention.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, it has been stressed that advance care planning integrated within kidney services can lead to more patients being involved in decisions for end-of-life care. In Denmark, there is no systematic approach to advance care planning and end-of-life care interventions within kidney services. A shared decision-making intervention for planning end-of-life care may support more effective treatment management between patients with end-stage kidney disease, their relatives and the health professionals. The purpose of this research is to find evidence to design a shared decision-making intervention and test its acceptability to patients with end-stage kidney disease, their relatives, and health professionals in Danish kidney services. METHODS: This research project will be conducted from November 2020 to November 2023 and is structured according to the UK Medical Research Council framework for complex intervention design and evaluation research. The development phase research includes mixed method surveys. First, a systematic literature review synthesising primary empirical evidence of patient-involvement interventions for patients with end-stage kidney disease making end-of-life care decisions will be conducted. Second, interview methods will be carried out with patients with end-stage kidney disease, relatives, and health professionals to identify experiences of involvement in decision-making and decisional needs when planning end-of-life care. Findings will inform the co-design of the shared decision-making intervention using an iterative process with our multiple-stakeholder steering committee. A pilot test across five kidney units assessing if the shared decision-making intervention is acceptable and feasible to patients, relatives, and health professionals providing services to support delivery of care in kidney services. DISCUSSION: This research will provide evidence informing the content and design of a shared decision-making intervention supporting patient-professional planning of end-of-life care for patients with end-stage kidney disease, and assessing its acceptability and feasibility when integrated within Danish kidney units. This research is the first step to innovating the involvement of patients in end-of-life care planning with kidney professionals.

Developing and testing guidance to support researchers engaging patient partners in health-related research.

BACKGROUND: Although interest in Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research is growing, there seems to be a lack of guidance supporting researchers in deciding on methods and levels for Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research throughout the research process. Furthermore, the numerous definitions, methods, and frameworks make it challenging for researchers new to this field to decide on the most appropriate approach for their project. METHODS: This study aimed to develop and test guidance for researchers deciding on approaches, levels, and methods for engaging patient partners in health-related research. A group of 11 researchers in Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research participated in six workshops to develop the guidance. The feasibility and acceptability of the guidance were tested in a survey of 14 researchers using the System Usability Scale plus two elaborative questions. The guidance was also tested by five PhD students engaging patient partners in their projects. RESULTS: The guidance developed consisted of two resources: Resource I outlined five international approaches to Patient and Public Involvement in health-related research, and Resource II described the different levels and methods for engaging patient partners in research. The System Usability Scale score (at the 50th percentile) was 80, indicating excellent usability. Qualitative data showed that the two resources supported reflections regarding different approaches, levels, and methods. CONCLUSION: The researchers found the guidance to be supportive of their reflective thinking about engaging patient partners in their research. The testing provided knowledge about when and how to use the guidance but also raised questions about the usefulness of the guidance in communications with patients.

More and more patients are taking part in research as patient partners. However, researchers have little guidance on how to bring patient partners into research studies and at what levels. There are many ways to do this. It can be hard to choose the way most appropriate for a specific project, especially for newer researchers. We (11 researchers at different career levels) developed guidance through six workshops to help new researchers choosing the way to engage patient partners most appropriate for their project. The guidance resulted in two different resources. Resource I gives five international approaches for bringing patient partners into research. Resource II describes methods for engaging patient partners at different levels. Fourteen researchers and five PhD students tested the guidance and scored how usable it is. It had excellent usability. The two resources did help researchers to decide on the best ways to engage patient partners in research. We now need to test how the guidance can be used to talk to patients about taking part in specific research projects.