Implementation of kidney palliative care-lessons learned from the US Department of Veterans Affairs.

Advanced kidney disease is a progressive life-limiting illness associated with high symptom burden, disability, and highly intensive care near the end of life. There is growing interest in integrating palliative care principles into the care of patients with advanced kidney disease to improve care and outcomes for these patients. The United States (US) Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been a leader in advancing palliative care initiatives across its health system and whose experience and approach may be instructive to other health systems seeking to develop kidney palliative care (KPC) services. Herein, we review current KPC programs in the VA and highlight the different models of care that programs have been adopted and how key components of goals of care conversations and advance care planning, symptom management, multidisciplinary care, patient selection, and quality improvement have been implemented across programs. VA KPC programs have adopted "parallel", "merged", and "embedded" models of KPC that reflect the different configurations of partnerships between nephrology and palliative care providers to deliver KPC. A primary service of VA KPC programs is providing goals of care conversations and advance care planning to referred patients and systematically documenting the outcomes of these discussions in standardized note templates in the electronic medical record. Symptom management is delivered by KPC providers through regular shared or sequential visits with patients' nephrology providers and is guided by patient responses to validated symptom surveys. Programs are staffed by allied health professionals, such as chaplains, pharmacists, social workers, and dieticians, to provide whole-person care and regularly huddle with nephrology staff to reach a shared understanding of each patient's care needs and plan. KPC programs implement champions who select patients in greatest need of KPC using a combination of clinical events that trigger referral for KPC and validated mortality risk prediction scores that are automatically generated in each patient's medical record. KPC programs also routinely collect clinical, patient-reported, process, and care quality measures to assess its services. The experiences of the VA highlight novel approaches that strive to close the care gaps in meeting the KPC needs of patients with advanced kidney disease.

Value Placed on Comfort vs Life Prolongation Among Patients Treated With Maintenance Dialysis.

Importance: Patients receiving maintenance dialysis experience intensive patterns of end-of-life care that might not be consistent with their values. Objective: To evaluate the association of patients' health care values with engagement in advance care planning and end-of-life care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Survey study of patients who received maintenance dialysis between 2015 and 2018 at dialysis centers in the greater metropolitan areas of Seattle, Washington, and Nashville, Tennessee, with longitudinal follow-up of decedents. Logistic regression models were used to estimate probabilities. Data analysis was conducted between May and October 2022. Exposures: A survey question about the value that the participant would place on longevity-focused vs comfort-focused care if they were to become seriously ill. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported engagement in advance care planning and care received near the end of life through 2020 using linked kidney registry data and Medicare claims. Results: Of 933 patients (mean [SD] age, 62.6 [14.0] years; 525 male patients [56.3%]; 254 [27.2%] identified as Black) who responded to the question about values and could be linked to registry data (65.2% response rate [933 of 1431 eligible patients]), 452 (48.4%) indicated that they would value comfort-focused care, 179 (19.2%) that they would value longevity-focused care, and 302 (32.4%) that they were unsure about the intensity of care they would value. Many had not completed an advance directive (estimated probability, 47.5% [95% CI, 42.9%-52.1%] of those who would value comfort-focused care vs 28.1% [95% CI, 24.0%-32.3%] of those who would value longevity-focused care or were unsure; P < .001), had not discussed hospice (estimated probability, 28.6% [95% CI, 24.6%-32.9%] comfort focused vs 18.2% [95% CI, 14.7%-21.7%] longevity focused or unsure; P < .001), or had not discussed stopping dialysis (estimated probability, 33.3% [95% CI, 29.0%-37.7%] comfort focused vs 21.9% [95% CI, 18.2%-25.8%] longevity focused or unsure; P < .001). Most respondents wanted to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (estimated probability, 78.0% [95% CI, 74.2%-81.7%] comfort focused vs 93.9% [95% CI, 91.4%-96.1%] longevity focused or unsure; P < .001) and mechanical ventilation (estimated probability, 52.0% [95% CI, 47.4%-56.6%] comfort focused vs 77.9% [95% CI, 74.0%-81.7%] longevity focused or unsure; P < .001). Among decedents, the percentages of participants who received an intensive procedure during the final month of life (estimated probability, 23.5% [95% CI, 16.5%-31.0%] comfort focused vs 26.1% [95% CI, 18.0%-34.5%] longevity focused or unsure; P = .64), discontinued dialysis (estimated probability, 38.3% [95% CI, 32.0%-44.8%] comfort focused vs 30.2% [95% CI, 23.0%-37.8%] longevity focused or unsure; P = .09), and enrolled in hospice (estimated probability, 32.2% [95% CI, 25.7%-38.7%] comfort focused vs 23.3% [95% CI, 16.4%-30.5%] longevity focused or unsure; P = .07) were not statistically different. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study found that there appeared to be a disconnect between patients' expressed values, which were largely comfort focused, and their engagement in advance care planning and end-of-life care, which reflected a focus on longevity. These findings suggest important opportunities to improve the quality of care for patients receiving dialysis.

Decision-making about dialysis: Beyond just dialysis or death.

Nearly half of the persons receiving dialysis in the United States are aged 65 years or older. Kidney failure occurs most frequently in older adults, and typically triggers a discussion regarding dialysis treatment. In this Special Article, we describe the journey of Mr. Howard Russell, an older adult who experienced kidney failure and underwent dialysis. Using the experience of Mr. Russell, we illustrate the complexity of dialysis decision-making, including how disease trajectory and health policy can potentially impede older adults from achieving "what matters." Our intent is to provide guidance regarding these barriers and support to clinicians who are sharing similar journeys with older adults making decisions about dialysis. Based on Mr. Russell's journey, we suggest that when discussing dialysis with an older adult, four points be considered: (1) recognize if dialysis is needed long-term; (2) understand what matters for the older adult; (3) sync the treatment plan when what matters changes; and (4) set up with resources for kidney failure, which is limited but evolving.

A Patient Decision Aid About Conservative Kidney Management in Advanced Kidney Disease: A Randomized Pilot Trial.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Available decision aids for patients about treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) often lack information on conservative kidney management (CKM). We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a decision aid on CKM among patients with advanced CKD and their family members. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized pilot trial. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged≥75 years with stage 4 or 5 CKD and their family members at 4 medical centers in the greater Seattle area between August 2020 and December 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Usual care with or without a decision aid on CKM. OUTCOME: Acceptability was assessed by attrition rates between the initial study visit (T1) and the 3-month follow-up evaluation (T3). The primary outcome and measure of feasibility was the proportion of participants who discussed CKM with a health care provider between T1 and T3. RESULTS: We randomized 92 patients of whom 86 (55.8% male; age 82±6 years; 82.6% White) completed T1-42 in the usual care arm and 44 in the usual care plus decision aid arm-and 56 family members of whom 53 (18.9% male; age 71±11 years; 86.8% White) completed T1-20 in usual care arm and 33 in the usual care plus decisions aid arm. The attrition rates were 21% versus 21% (P=1.0) for patients, and 10% versus 18% (P=0.46) for family members in the usual care versus usual care plus decisions aid arms. Receipt of the decision aid significantly increased discussion of CKM with a health care provider for patients (26.4% vs 3.0%, P=0.007) and family members (26.9% vs 0, P=0.02). LIMITATIONS: Possible limited generalizability because participants were a relatively homogenous group. The decision aid focuses on CKM and may be less applicable to those with limited knowledge of kidney replacement therapies. CONCLUSIONS: A CKM decision aid was feasible and acceptable, and increased discussion of this treatment option with health care providers. This aid may serve as a useful adjunct to the currently available educational tools on treatments for advanced CKD. FUNDING: Grant from a not-for-profit entity (National Palliative Care Research Center). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT04919941.

Using Human-Centered Design Principles to Create a Decision Aid on Conservative Kidney Management for Advanced Kidney Disease.

Background: Most patients are unaware of approaches to treating advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) other than dialysis. Methods: We developed a dedicated decision aid on conservative kidney management using human-centered design principles in three phases: (1) discovery: engagement of informants to understand their needs and preferences; (2) design: multiple rapid cycles of ideation, prototyping, and testing of a decision aid with a small group of informants; and (3) implementation: testing the decision aid in real-world settings with attention to how the decision aid can be further refined. Informants included a national patient advisory committee on kidney diseases, 50 patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD and 35 of their family members, and 16 clinicians recruited from the greater Seattle area between June 2019 and September 2021. Results: Findings from the discovery phase informed an initial prototype of the decision aid, which included five sections: a description of kidney disease and its signs and symptoms, an overview of conservative kidney management and the kinds of supports provided, self-reflection exercises to elicit patients' values and goals, the pros and cons of conservative kidney management, and the option of changing one's mind about conservative kidney management. The prototype underwent several rounds of iteration during its design phase, which resulted in the addition of an introductory section describing the intended audience and more detailed information in other sections. Findings from its implementation phase led to the addition of examples of common questions that patients and family members had about conservative kidney management and a final section on other related educational resources. Conclusions: Human-centered design principles supported a systematic and collaborative approach between researchers, patients, family members, and clinicians for developing a decision aid on conservative kidney management.

Video Images about Decisions for Ethical Outcomes in Kidney Disease (VIDEO-KD): the study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) often are inadequately prepared to make informed decisions about treatments including dialysis and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Further, evidence shows that patients with advanced CKD do not commonly engage in advance care planning (ACP), may suffer from poor quality of life, and may be exposed to end-of-life care that is not concordant with their goals. We aim to study the effectiveness of a video intervention on ACP, treatment preferences and other patient-reported outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Video Images about Decisions for Ethical Outcomes in Kidney Disease trial is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial that will test the effectiveness of an intervention that includes a CKD-related video decision aid followed by recording personal video declarations about goals of care and treatment preferences in older adults with advancing CKD. We aim to enrol 600 patients over 5 years at 10 sites. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Regulatory and ethical aspects of this trial include a single Institutional Review Board mechanism for approval, data use agreements among sites, and a Data Safety and Monitoring Board. We intend to disseminate findings at national meetings and publish our results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04347629.

The VA Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Initiative: A qualitative analysis of veterans with advanced kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Documentation of patients' goals of care is integral to promoting goal-concordant care. In 2017, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) launched a system-wide initiative to standardize documentation of patients' preferences for life-sustaining treatments (LST) and related goals-of-care conversations (GoCC) that included using a note template in its national electronic medical record system. We describe implementation of the LST note based on documentation in the medical records of patients with advanced kidney disease, a group that has traditionally experienced highly intensive patterns of care. METHODS: We performed a qualitative analysis of documentation in the VA electronic medical record for a national random sample of 500 adults with advanced kidney disease for whom at least one LST note was completed between July 2018 and March 2019 to identify prominent themes pertaining to the content and context of LST notes. RESULTS: During the observation period, a total of 723 (mean 1.5, range 1-6) LST notes were completed for this cohort. Two themes emerged from the analysis: (1) Reactive approach: LST notes were largely completed in response to medical crises, in which they focused on short-term goals and preferences rather than patients' broader health and goals, or certain clinical encounters designated by the initiative as "triggering events" for LST note completion; (2) Practitioner-driven: Documentation suggested that practitioners would attempt to engage patients/surrogates in GoCC to lay out treatment options in order to move care forward, but patients/surrogates sometimes appeared reluctant to engage in GoCC and had difficulty communicating in ways that practitioners could understand. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized documentation of patients' treatment preferences and related GoCC was used to inform in-the-moment decision-making during acute illness and certain junctures in care. There is opportunity to expand standardized documentation practices and related GoCC to address patients'/surrogates' broader health concerns and goals and to enhance their engagement in these processes.

Long-term Outcomes Among Patients With Advanced Kidney Disease Who Forgo Maintenance Dialysis: A Systematic Review.

Importance: An understanding of the long-term outcomes of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease not treated with maintenance dialysis is needed to improve shared decision-making and care practices for this population. Objective: To evaluate survival, use of health care resources, changes in quality of life, and end-of-life care of patients with advanced kidney disease who forgo dialysis. Evidence Review: MEDLINE, Embase (Excerpta Medica Database), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were searched from inception through December 3, 2021, for all English language longitudinal studies of adults in whom there was an explicit decision not to pursue maintenance dialysis. Two investigators independently reviewed all studies and selected those reporting survival, use of health care resources, changes in quality of life, or end-of-life care during follow-up. Studies of patients who initiated and then discontinued maintenance dialysis and patients in whom it was not clear that there was an explicit decision to forgo dialysis were excluded. One author abstracted all study data, of which 12% was independently adjudicated by a second author (<1% error rate). Findings: Forty-one cohort studies comprising 5102 patients (range, 11-812 patients) were included in this systematic review (5%-99% men; mean age range, 60-87 years). Substantial heterogeneity in study designs and measures used to report outcomes limited comparability across studies. Median survival of cohorts ranged from 1 to 41 months as measured from a baseline mean estimated glomerular filtration rate ranging from 7 to 19 mL/min/1.73 m2. Patients generally experienced 1 to 2 hospital admissions, 6 to 16 in-hospital days, 7 to 8 clinic visits, and 2 emergency department visits per person-year. During an observation period of 8 to 24 months, mental well-being improved, and physical well-being and overall quality of life were largely stable until late in the illness course. Among patients who died during follow-up, 20% to 76% had enrolled in hospice, 27% to 68% died in a hospital setting and 12% to 71% died at home; 57% to 76% were hospitalized, and 4% to 47% received an invasive procedure during the final month of life. Conclusions and Relevance: Many patients who do not pursue dialysis survived several years and experienced sustained quality of life until late in the illness course. Nonetheless, use of acute care services was common and intensity of end-of-life care highly variable across cohorts. These findings suggest that consistent approaches to the study of conservative kidney management are needed to enhance the generalizability of findings and develop models of care that optimize outcomes among conservatively managed patients.

Older Patients with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease and Their Perspectives on Prognostic Information: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic information is key to shared decision-making, particularly in life-limiting illness like advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). OBJECTIVE: To understand the prognostic information preferences expressed by older patients with CKD. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative study of 28 consecutively enrolled patients over 65 years of age with non-dialysis dependent CKD stages 3b-5, receiving care in a multi-disciplinary CKD clinic. APPROACH: Semi-structured telephone or in-person interviews to explore patients' preference for and perceived value of individualized prognostic information. Interviews were analyzed using inductive content analysis. KEY RESULTS: We completed interviews with 28 patients (77.7 ± SD 6.8 years, 69% men). Patients varied in their preference for prognostic information and more were interested in their risk of progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) than in life expectancy. Many conflated ESKD risk with risk of death, perceiving a binary choice between dialysis and quick decline and death. Patients expressed that prognostic information would allow them to plan, take care of important business, and think about their treatment options. Patients were accepting of prognostic uncertainty and imagined leveraging it to nurture hope or motivate them to better manage risk factors. They endorsed the desire to receive prognosis of life expectancy even though it may be hard to accept or difficult to talk about but worried it could create helplessness for other patients in their situation. CONCLUSION: Most, but not all, patients were interested in prognostic information and could see its value in motivating behavior change and allowing planning. Some patients expressed concern that information on life expectancy might cause depression and hopelessness. Therefore, prognostic information is most appropriate as part of a clinical conversation that fosters shared decision-making and helps patients consider treatment risks, benefits, and burdens in context of their lives.

Challenges to Shared Decision Making About Treatment of Advanced CKD: A Qualitative Study of Patients and Clinicians.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Greater understanding of the challenges to shared decision making about treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) is needed to support implementation of shared decision making in clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged≥65 years with advanced CKD and their clinicians recruited from 3 medical centers participated in semi-structured interviews. In-depth review of patients' electronic medical records was also performed. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Interview transcripts and medical record notes were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (age 73±6 years, 66% male, 59% White) and 10 of their clinicians (age 52±12 years, 30% male, 70% White) participated in interviews. Four themes emerged from qualitative analysis: (1) competing priorities-patients and their clinicians tended to differ on when to prioritize CKD and dialysis planning above other personal or medical problems; (2) focusing on present or future-patients were more focused on living well now while clinicians were more focused on preparing for dialysis and future adverse events; (3) standardized versus individualized approach to CKD-although clinicians tried to personalize care recommendations to their patients, the patients perceived their clinicians as taking a monolithic approach to CKD that was predicated on clinical practice guidelines and medical literature rather than the patients' lived experiences with CKD and personal values and goals; and (4) power dynamics-patients described cautiously navigating a power differential in their therapeutic relationship with their clinicians whereas clinicians seemed less attuned to these power dynamics. LIMITATIONS: Thematic saturation was based on patient interviews. Themes presented might incompletely reflect clinicians' perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve shared decision making for treatment of advanced CKD will likely need to explicitly address differences between patients and their clinicians in approaches to decision making about treatment of advanced CKD and perceived power imbalances in the therapeutic relationship.

Professional roles and relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study among US clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed healthcare delivery in the USA, but there has been little empirical work describing the impact of these changes on clinicians. We conducted a study to address the following question: how has the pandemic impacted US clinicians' professional roles and relationships? DESIGN: Inductive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Clinical settings across the USA in April and May of 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians with leadership and/or clinical roles during the COVID-19 pandemic. MEASURES: Emergent themes related to professional roles and relationships. RESULTS: Sixty-one clinicians participated in semi-structured interviews. Study participants were practising in 15 states across the USA, and the majority were White physicians from large academic centres. Three overlapping and inter-related themes emerged from qualitative analysis of interview transcripts: (1) disruption: boundaries between work and home life became blurred and professional identity and usual clinical roles were upended; (2) constructive adaptation: some clinicians were able to find new meaning in their work and described a spirit of collaboration, shared goals, open communication and mutual respect among colleagues; and (3) discord and estrangement: other clinicians felt alienated from their clinical roles and experienced demoralising work environments marked by division, value conflicts and mistrust. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians encountered marked disruption of their professional roles, identities and relationships during the pandemic to which they and their colleagues responded in a range of different ways. Some described a spirit of collaboration and camaraderie, while others felt alienated by their new roles and experienced work environments marked by division, value conflicts and mistrust. Our findings highlight the importance of effective teamwork and efforts to support clinician well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic.