Concurrent Hospice and Dialysis Care: Considerations for Implementation.

IMPORTANCE: Hospice positively impacts care at the end of life for patients and their families. However, compared to the general Medicare population, patients on dialysis are half as likely to receive hospice. Concurrent hospice and dialysis care offers an opportunity to improve care for people living with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). OBJECTIVE: We sought to (1) develop a conceptual model of the Program and (2) identify key components, resources, and considerations for further implementation. DESIGN: We conducted a template analysis of qualitative interviews and convened a community advisory panel (CAP) to get feedback on current concurrent care design and considerations for dissemination and implementation. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-nine patients with late-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD), family caregivers, bereaved family caregivers, hospice clinicians, nephrology clinicians, administrators, and policy experts participated in interviews. A purposive subset of 19 interviewees composed the CAP. MAIN MEASURES: Qualitative feedback on concurrent care design refinements, implementation, and resources. KEY RESULTS: Participants identified four themes that define an effective model of concurrent hospice and dialysis: it requires (1) timely goals-of-care conversations and (2) an interdisciplinary approach; (3) clear guidelines ensure smooth transitions for patients and families; and (4) hospice payment policy must support concurrent care. CAP participants provided feedback on the phases of an effective model of concurrent hospice and dialysis, and resources, including written and interactive educational materials, communication tools, workflow processes, and order sets. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a conceptual model for concurrent hospice and dialysis care and a corresponding resource list. In addition to policy changes, clinical implementation and educational resources can facilitate scalable and equitable dissemination of concurrent care. Concurrent hospice and dialysis care must be systematically evaluated via a hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial that includes the resources outlined herein, based on our conceptual model of concurrent care delivery.

Barriers of Acceptance to Hospice Care: a Randomized Vignette-Based Experiment.

BACKGROUND: The per diem financial structure of hospice care may lead agencies to consider patient-level factors when weighing admissions. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if treatment cost, disease complexity, and diagnosis are associated with hospice willingness to accept patients. DESIGN: In this 2019 online survey study, individuals involved in hospice admissions decisions were randomized to view one of six hypothetical patient vignettes: "high-cost, high-complexity," "low-cost, high-complexity," and "low-cost, low-complexity" within two diseases: heart failure and cystic fibrosis. Vignettes included demographics, prognoses, goals, and medications with costs. Respondents indicated their perceived likelihood of acceptance to their hospice; if likelihood was <100%, respondents were asked the barriers to acceptance. We used bivariate tests to examine associations between demographic, clinical, and organizational factors and likelihood of acceptance. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals involved in hospice admissions decisions MAIN MEASURES: Likelihood of acceptance to hospice care KEY RESULTS: N=495 (76% female, 53% age 45-64). Likelihoods of acceptance in cystic fibrosis were 79.8% (high-cost, high-complexity), 92.4% (low-cost, high-complexity), and 91.5% (low-cost, low-complexity), and in heart failure were 65.9% (high-cost, high-complexity), 87.3% (low-cost, high-complexity), and 96.6% (low-cost, low-complexity). For both heart failure and cystic fibrosis, respondents were less likely to accept the high-cost, high-complexity patient than the low-cost, high-complexity patient (65.9% vs. 87.3%, 79.8% vs. 92.4%, both p<0.001). For heart failure, respondents were less likely to accept the low-cost, high-complexity patient than the low-cost, low-complexity patient (87.3% vs. 96.6%, p=0.004). Treatment cost was the most common barrier for 5 of 6 vignettes. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that patients receiving expensive and/or complex treatments for palliation may have difficulty accessing hospice.

Description and Outcomes of an Innovative Concurrent Hospice-Dialysis Program.

BACKGROUND: Compared with the general Medicare population, patients with ESKD have worse quality metrics for end-of-life care, including a higher percentage experiencing hospitalizations and in-hospital deaths and a lower percentage referred to hospice. We developed a Concurrent Hospice and Dialysis Program in which patients may receive palliative dialysis alongside hospice services. The Program aims to improve access to quality end-of-life care and, ultimately, improve the experiences of patients, caregivers, and clinicians. OBJECTIVES: We sought to describe (1) the Program and (2) enrollment and utilization characteristics of Program participants. METHODS: We conducted a quantitative description of demographics, patient characteristics, and utilization of Program enrollees. RESULTS: Of 43 total enrollees, 44% received at least one dialysis treatment, whereas 56% received no dialysis. The median (range) hospice length of stay was 9 (1-76) days for all participants and 13 (4-76) days for those who received at least one dialysis treatment. The average number of dialysis treatments was 3.5 (range 1-9) for hemodialysis and 19.2 (range 3-65) for peritoneal dialysis. Sixty-five percent of enrollees died at home, 23% in inpatient hospice, and 12% in a nursing facility; no patients died in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Our 3-year experience with the Program demonstrated that enrollees had a longer median hospice stay than the previously reported 5-day median for patients with ESKD. Most patients received no further dialysis treatments despite the option to continue dialysis. Our experience provides evidence to support future work testing the effectiveness of such clinical programs to improve patient and utilization outcomes.