Impact of Prior Abdominal Procedures on Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Outcomes: Findings From the North American Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Registry.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: A history of prior abdominal procedures may influence the likelihood of referral for peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion. To guide clinical decision making in this population, this study examined the association between prior abdominal procedures and outcomes in patients undergoing PD catheter insertion. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adults undergoing their first PD catheter insertion between November 1, 2011, and November 1, 2020, at 11 institutions in Canada and the United States participating in the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis North American Catheter Registry. EXPOSURE: Prior abdominal procedure(s) defined as any procedure that enters the peritoneal cavity. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was time to the first of (1) abandonment of the PD catheter or (2) interruption/termination of PD. Secondary outcomes were rates of emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and procedures. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Cumulative incidence curves were used to describe the risk over time, and an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the association between the exposure and primary outcome. Models for count data were used to estimate the associations between the exposure and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 855 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 31% had a history of a prior abdominal procedure and 20% experienced at least 1 PD catheter-related complication that led to the primary outcome. Prior abdominal procedures were not associated with an increased risk of the primary outcome (adjusted HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.68-1.84). Upper-abdominal procedures were associated with a higher adjusted hazard of the primary outcome, but there was no dose-response relationship concerning the number of procedures. There was no association between prior abdominal procedures and other secondary outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Observational study and cohort limited to a sample of patients believed to be potential candidates for PD catheter insertion. CONCLUSION: A history of prior abdominal procedure(s) does not appear to influence catheter outcomes following PD catheter insertion. Such a history should not be a contraindication to PD. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a life-saving therapy for individuals with kidney failure that can be done at home. PD requires the placement of a tube, or catheter, into the abdomen to allow the exchange of dialysis fluid during treatment. There is concern that individuals who have undergone prior abdominal procedures and are referred for a catheter might have scarring that could affect catheter function. In some institutions, they might not even be offered PD therapy as an option. In this study, we found that a history of prior abdominal procedures did not increase the risk of PD catheter complications and should not dissuade patients from choosing PD or providers from recommending it.

Exploring the Impact of In Basket Metrics on the Adoption of a New Electronic Health Record System Among Specialists in a Tertiary Hospital in Alberta: Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care organizations implement electronic health record (EHR) systems with the expectation of improved patient care and enhanced provider performance. However, while these technologies hold the potential to create improved care and system efficiencies, they can also lead to unintended negative consequences, such as patient safety issues, communication problems, and provider burnout. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to document metrics related to the In Basket communication hub (time in In Basket per day, time in In Basket per appointment, In Basket messages received per day, and turnaround time) of the EHR system implemented by Alberta Health Services, the province-wide health delivery system called Connect Care (Epic Systems). The objective was to identify how a newly implemented EHR system was used, the timing of its use, and the duration of use specifically related to In Basket activities. METHODS: A descriptive study was conducted. Due to the diversity of specialties, the providers were grouped into medical and surgical based on previous similar studies. The participants were further subgrouped based on their self-reported clinical full-time equivalent (FTE ) measure. This resulted in 3 subgroups for analysis: medical FTE <0.5, medical FTE >0.5, and surgical (all of whom reported FTE >0.5). The analysis was limited to outpatient clinical interactions and explicitly excluded inpatient activities. RESULTS: A total of 72 participants from 19 different specialties enrolled in this study. The providers had, on average, 8.31 appointments per day during the reporting periods. The providers received, on average, 21.93 messages per day, and they spent 7.61 minutes on average in the time in In Basket per day metric and 1.84 minutes on average in the time in In Basket per appointment metric. The time for the providers to mark messages as done (turnaround time) was on average 11.45 days during the reporting period. Although the surgical group had, on average, approximately twice as many appointments per scheduled day, they spent considerably less connected time (based on almost all time metrics) than the medical group. However, the surgical group took much longer than the medical group to mark messages as done (turnaround time). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a range of patterns with no consistent direction. There does not seem to be evidence of a "learning curve," which would have shown a consistent reduction in time spent on the system over time due to familiarity and experience. While this study does not show how the included metrics could be used as predictors of providers' satisfaction or feelings of burnout, the use trends could be used to start discussions about future Canadian studies needed in this area.

Patient Training and Patient Safety in Home Hemodialysis.

The success of a home hemodialysis program depends largely on a patient safety framework and the risk tolerance of a home dialysis program. Dialysis treatments require operators to perform dozens of steps repeatedly and reliably in a complex procedure. For home hemodialysis, those operators are patients themselves or their care partners, so attention to safety and risk mitigation is front of mind. While newer, smaller, and more user-friendly dialysis machines designed explicitly for home use are slowly entering the marketplace, teaching patients to perform their own treatments in an unsupervised setting hundreds of times remains a foundational programmatic obligation regardless of machine. Just how safe is home hemodialysis? How does patient training affect this safety? There is a surprising lack of literature surrounding these questions. No consensus exists among home hemodialysis programs regarding optimized training schedules or methods, with each program adopting its own approach on the basis of local experience. Furthermore, there are little available data on the safety of home hemodialysis as compared with conventional in-center hemodialysis. This review will outline considerations for training patients on home hemodialysis, discuss the safety of home hemodialysis with an emphasis on the risk of serious and life-threatening adverse effects, and address the methods by which adverse events are monitored and prevented.

The Association of Intra-Abdominal Adhesions with Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter-Related Complications.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the association of intra-abdominal adhesions with the risk of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter complications. METHODS: Individuals undergoing laparoscopic PD catheter insertion were prospectively enrolled from eight centers in Canada and the United States. Patients were grouped based on the presence of adhesions observed during catheter insertion. The primary outcome was the composite of PD never starting, termination of PD, or the need for an invasive procedure caused by flow restriction or abdominal pain. RESULTS: Seven hundred and fifty-eight individuals were enrolled, of whom 201 (27%) had adhesions during laparoscopic PD catheter insertion. The risk of the primary outcome occurred in 35 (17%) in the adhesion group compared with 58 (10%) in the no adhesion group (adjusted HR, 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 2.55) within 6 months of insertion. Lower abdominal or pelvic adhesions had an adjusted HR of 1.80 (95% CI, 1.09 to 2.98) compared with the no adhesion group. Invasive procedures were required in 26 (13%) and 47 (8%) of the adhesion and no adhesion groups, respectively (unadjusted HR, 1.60: 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.47) within 6 months of insertion. The adjusted odds ratio for adhesions for women was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.12 to 2.41), for body mass index per 5 kg/m 2 was 1.16 (95% CI, 1.003 to 1.34), and for prior abdominal surgery was 8.34 (95% CI, 5.5 to 12.34). Common abnormalities found during invasive procedures included PD catheter tip migration, occlusion of the lumen with fibrin, omental wrapping, adherence to the bowel, and the development of new adhesions. CONCLUSIONS: People with intra-abdominal adhesions undergoing PD catheter insertion were at higher risk for abdominal pain or flow restriction preventing PD from starting, PD termination, or requiring an invasive procedure. However, most patients, with or without adhesions, did not experience complications, and most complications did not lead to the termination of PD therapy.