"Diving in the deep-end and swimming": a mixed methods study using normalization process theory to evaluate a learning collaborative approach for the implementation of palliative care practices in hemodialysis centers.

BACKGROUND: Normalization Process Theory (NPT) is an implementation theory that can be used to explain how and why implementation strategies work or not in particular circumstances. We used it to understand the mechanisms that lead to the adoption and routinization of palliative care within hemodialysis centers. METHODS: We employed a longitudinal, mixed methods approach to comprehensively evaluate the implementation of palliative care practices among ten hemodialysis centers participating in an Institute for Healthcare Improvement Breakthrough- Series learning collaborative. Qualitative methods included longitudinal observations of collaborative activities, and interviews with implementers at the end of the study. We used an inductive and deductive approach to thematic analysis informed by NPT constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring) and implementation outcomes. The NoMAD survey, which measures NPT constructs, was completed by implementers at each hemodialysis center during early and late implementation. RESULTS: The four mechanisms posited in NPT had a dynamic and layered relationship during the implementation process. Collaborative participants participated because they believed in the value and legitimacy of palliative care for patients receiving hemodialysis and thus had high levels of cognitive participation at the start. Didactic Learning Sessions were important for building practice coherence, and sense-making was solidified through testing new skills in practice and first-hand observation during coaching visits by an expert. Collective action was hampered by limited time among team members and practical issues such as arranging meetings with patients. Reflexive monitoring of the positive benefit to patient and family experiences was key in shifting mindsets from disease-centric towards a patient-centered model of care. NoMAD survey scores showed modest improvement over time, with collective action having the lowest scores. CONCLUSIONS: NPT was a useful framework for understanding the implementation of palliative care practices within hemodialysis centers. We found a nonlinear relationship among the mechanisms which is reflected in our model of implementation of palliative care practices through a learning collaborative. These findings suggest that the implementation of complex practices such as palliative care may be more successful through iterative learning and practice opportunities as the mechanisms for change are layered and mutually reinforcing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04125537 . Registered 14 October 2019 - Retrospectively registered.

Advance Care Planning Coaching in CKD Clinics: A Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Although guidelines recommend more and earlier advance care planning (ACP) for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), scant evidence exists to guide incorporation of ACP into clinical practice for patients with stages of CKD prior to kidney failure. Involving nephrology team members in addition to primary care providers in this important patient-centered process may increase its accessibility. Our study examined the effect of coaching implemented in CKD clinics on patient engagement with ACP. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Three CKD clinics in different states participated: 273 patients consented to participate, 254 were included in analysis. Eligible patients were 55 years or older, had stage 3-5 CKD, and were English speaking. INTERVENTION: Nurses or social workers with experience in nephrology or palliative care delivered individualized in-person ACP sessions. The enhanced control group was given Make Your Wishes About You (MY WAY) education materials and was verbally encouraged to bring their completed advance directives to the clinic. OUTCOME: Primary outcome measures were scores on a 45-point ACP engagement scale at 14 weeks and a documented advance directive or portable medical order at 16 weeks after enrollment. RESULTS: Among 254 participants analyzed, 46.5% were 65-74 years of age, and 54% had CKD stage 3. The coached patients scored 1.9 points higher at 14 weeks on the ACP engagement scale (ß = 1.87 [95% CI, 0.13-3.64]) adjusted for baseline score and site. Overall, 32.8% of intervention patients (41 of 125) had an advance directive compared with 17.8% (23 of 129) of patients in the control group. In a site-adjusted multivariable model, coached patients were 79% more likely to have a documented advance directive or portable medical order (adjusted risk ratio, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.18-2.72]), with the impact principally evident at only 1 study site. LIMITATIONS: Small number of study sites and possible unrepresentativeness of the broader CKD population by study participants. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized coaching may be effective in enhancing ACP, but its impact may be influenced by the health care environment where it is delivered. FUNDING: The Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation, via the Greater Value Portfolio. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT03506087.

Implementing Advance Care Planning for dialysis patients: HIGHway project.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing hemodialysis have a high mortality rate and yet underutilize palliative care and hospice resources. The Shared Decision Making-Renal Supportive Care (SDM-RSC) intervention focused on goals of care conversations between patients and family members with the nephrologist and social worker. The intervention targeted deficiencies in communication, estimating prognosis, and transition planning for seriously ill dialysis patients. The intervention showed capacity to increase substantially completion of advance care directives. The HIGHway Project, adapted from the previous SDM-RSC, scale up training social workers or nurses in dialysis center in advance care planning (ACP), and then support them for a subsequent 9-month action period, to engage in ACP conversations with patients at their dialysis center regarding their preferences for end-of-life care. METHODS: We will train between 50-60 dialysis teams, led by social workers or nurses, to engage in ACP conversations with patients at their dialysis center regarding their preferences for end-of-life care. This implementation project uses the Knowledge to Action (KTA) Framework within the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to increase adoption and sustainability in the participating dialysis centers. This includes a curriculum about how to hold ACP conversation and coaching with monthly teleconferences through case discussion and mentoring. An application software will guide on the process and provide resources for holding ACP conversations. Our project will focus on implementation outcomes. Success will be determined by adoption and effective use of the ACP approach. Patient and provider outcomes will be measured by the number of ACP conversations held and documented; the quality and fidelity of ACP conversations to the HIGHway process as taught during education sessions; impact on knowledge and skills; content, relevance, and significance of ACP intervention for patients, and Supportive Kidney Care (SKC) App usage. Currently HIGHway is in the recruitment stage. DISCUSSION: Effective changes to advance care planning processes in dialysis centers can lead to institutional policy and protocol changes, providing a model for patients receiving dialysis treatment in the US. The result will be a widespread improvement in advance care planning, thereby remedying one of the current barriers to patient-centered, goal-concordant care for dialysis patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The George Washington University Protocol Record NCR213481, Honoring Individual Goals and Hopes: Implementing Advance Care Planning for Persons with Kidney Disease on Dialysis, is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05324878 on April 11th, 2022.

Recommendations for Public Policy Changes to Improve Supportive Care for Seriously Ill Patients With Kidney Disease.

National and international nephrology organizations have identified substantial unmet supportive care needs of patients with kidney disease and issued recommendations. In the United States, the most recent comprehensive effort to change kidney care, the Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative, does not explicitly address supportive care needs, although it attempts to implement more patient-centered care. This Perspective from the leaders of the Coalition for Supportive Care of Kidney Patients advocates for urgent policy changes to improve patient-centered care and the quality of life of seriously ill patients with kidney disease. It argues for the provision of supportive care by an interdisciplinary team led by nephrology clinicians to improve shared decision-making, advance care planning, pain and symptom management, the explicit offering of active medical management without dialysis as an option for patients who may not benefit from dialysis, and the removal by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and all other payors of financial and regulatory disincentives to quality supportive care, including hospice, for patients with or approaching kidney failure. It also emphasizes that all educational and accreditation programs for nephrology clinicians include kidney supportive care and its essential role in the care of patients with kidney disease.

Advanced Care Planning in Chronic Kidney Disease: Qualitative Impact of the MY WAY Intervention.

CONTEXT: Despite recommendations for shared decision-making and advanced care planning (ACP) for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), such conversations are infrequent. The MY WAY educational and patient coaching intervention aimed to promote high-quality ACP. OBJECTIVES: This qualitative substudy sought to gain participant feedback on the MY WAY ACP coaching intervention, and how it impacted their wishes, perceptions of kidney care, and factors that helped them reflect on ACP. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants from the intervention arm of the MY WAY study about their prior experience with ACPs in the context of CKD, impressions of the MY WAY intervention, and outcomes of the MY WAY intervention. We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of transcribed interviews. RESULTS: Among 15 intervention participants, the following major themes emerged: 1) Patients with CKD approach ACP with varied experiences; 2) Patients felt the MY WAY coaching intervention supported ACP by reinforcing values; and 3) Patients found the coaching intervention focused on end of life, but not necessarily on decision making regarding CKD. CONCLUSION: Participants perceived the coaching intervention to have high utility in facilitating ACP, but had a limited impact on CKD-specific decision-making. These findings suggest that the coach plays a crucial role in comfort with ACP conversations and that ACP readiness and engagement may not correlate with treatment preferences or understanding of CKD treatment decisions.

Implementation and Effectiveness of a Learning Collaborative to Improve Palliative Care for Seriously Ill Hemodialysis Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Limited implementation of palliative care practices in hemodialysis may contribute to end-of-life care that is intensive and not patient centered. We determined whether a learning collaborative for hemodialysis center providers improved delivery of palliative care best practices. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Ten US hemodialysis centers participated in a pre-post study targeting seriously ill patients between April 2019 and September 2020. Three practices were prioritized: screening for serious illness, goals of care discussions, and use of a palliative dialysis care pathway. The collaborative educational bundle consisted of learning sessions, communication skills training, and implementation support. The primary outcome was change in the probability of complete advance care planning documentation among seriously ill patients. Health care utilization was a secondary outcome, and implementation outcomes of acceptability, adoption, feasibility, and penetration were assessed using mixed methods. RESULTS: One center dropped out due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Among the remaining nine centers, 20% (273 of 1395) of patients were identified as seriously ill preimplementation, and 16% (203 of 1254) were identified as seriously ill postimplementation. From the preimplementation to postimplementation period, the adjusted probability of complete advance care planning documentation among seriously ill patients increased by 34.5 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 4.4 to 68.5). There was no difference in mortality or in utilization of palliative hemodialysis, hospice referral, or hemodialysis discontinuation. Screening for serious illness was widely adopted, and goals of care discussions were adopted with incomplete integration. There was limited adoption of a palliative dialysis care pathway. CONCLUSIONS: A learning collaborative for hemodialysis centers spanning the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was associated with adoption of serious illness screening and goals of care discussions as well as improved documentation of advance care planning for seriously ill patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: Pathways Project: Kidney Supportive Care, NCT04125537.

Pathways Project: Development of a Multimodal Innovation To Improve Kidney Supportive Care in Dialysis Centers.

Current care models for older patients with kidney failure in the United States do not incorporate supportive care approaches. The absence of supportive care contributes to poor symptom management and unwanted forms of care at the end of life. Using an Institute for Healthcare Improvement Collaborative Model for Achieving Breakthrough Improvement, we conducted a focused literature review, interviewed implementation experts, and convened a technical expert panel to distill existing evidence into an evidence-based supportive care change package. The change package consists of 14 best-practice recommendations for the care of patients seriously ill with kidney failure, emphasizing three key practices: systematic identification of patients who are seriously ill, goals-of-care conversations with identified patients, and care options to respond to patient wishes. Implementation will be supported through a collaborative consisting of three intensive learning sessions, monthly learning and collaboration calls, site data feedback, and quality-improvement technical assistance. To evaluate the change package's implementation and effectiveness, we designed a mixed-methods hybrid study involving the following: (1) effectiveness evaluation (including patient outcomes and staff perception of the effectiveness of the implementation of the change package); (2) quality-improvement monitoring via monthly tracking of a suite of quality-improvement indicators tied to the change package; and (3) implementation evaluation conducted by the external evaluator using mixed methods to assess implementation of the collaborative processes. Ten dialysis centers across the country, treating approximately 1550 patients, will participate. This article describes the process informing the intervention design, components of the intervention, evaluation design and measurements, and preliminary feasibility assessments. Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: Pathways Project: Kidney Supportive Care, NCT04125537.