Ethics Education in Health Sciences Should Engage Contentious Social Issues: Here Is Why and How.

Teaching ethics is crucial to health sciences education. Doing it well requires a willingness to engage contentious social issues. Those issues introduce conflict and risk, but avoiding them ignores moral diversity and renders the work of ethics education irrelevant. Therefore, when (not if) contentious issues and moral differences arise, they must be acknowledged and can be addressed with humility, collegiality, and openness to support learning. Faculty must risk moments when not everyone will "feel safe," so the candor implied in psychological safety can emerge. The deliberative and social work of ethics education involves generous listening, wading into difference, and wondering together if our beliefs and arguments are as sound as we once thought. By forecasting the need for candid engagement with contentious issues and moral difference, establishing ground rules, and bolstering due process structures for faculty and students, a riskier and more relevant ethics pedagogy can emerge. Doing so will prepare everyone for the moral diversity they can expect in our common life and in practice.

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.

Spheres of Influence and Strategic Advocacy for Equity in Medicine.

As the extent of health disparities in the USA has been revealed, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians have increasingly attended to their roles as advocates for their patients and communities. This article presents "spheres of influence" as a concept that can help physicians think strategically about how to build upon their clinical work and expertise to promote equity in medicine. The physician's primary sphere of influence is in direct patient care. However, physicians today often have many other roles, especially within larger health care institutions in which physicians often occupy positions of authority. Physicians are therefore well-positioned to act within these spheres in ways that draw upon the ethical principles that guide patient care and contribute materially to the cause of equity for colleagues and patients alike. By making changes to the ways they already work within their clinical spaces, institutional leadership roles, and wider communities, physicians can counteract the structural problems that undermine the health of the patients they serve.

Combined Oral Contraceptive Pill-Induced Hypertension and Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: Shared Mechanisms and Clinical Similarities.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Oral contraceptive pill-induced hypertension (OCPIH) and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (HDP) share common risk factors and pathophysiological mechanisms, yet the bidirectional relationship between these two conditions is not well-established. We review and describe OCPIH and HDP to better understand how hormonal and metabolic imbalances affect hypertension. RECENT FINDINGS: Oral contraceptive pills continue to be a popular method of contraception, with an incidence of OCPIH ranging from 1-8.5% among OCP users. HDP have an incidence of 5-10% of all pregnancies in the USA and have been shown to be a powerful predictor of lifetime adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including future hypertension. OCPIH and HDP share common risk factors such as age, BMI, past personal and family history of hypertension, as well as pathogenic mechanisms, including alterations in hormonal metabolism and the renin angiotensin aldosterone system; imbalance of vasodilator-vasoconstrictor compounds; and changes in the cardiovascular system. Future research should address additional potential mechanisms that underlie hypertension in these two conditions where endocrine changes, either physiological (pregnancy) or iatrogenic (use of OCP), play a role. This may lead to novel, targeted treatment options to improve hypertension management and overall cardiovascular risk profile management in this subset of young female patients.

Experiences of US Nephrologists in the Delivery of Conservative Care to Patients With Advanced Kidney Disease: A National Qualitative Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: It is relatively unusual for US patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) to forgo initiation of maintenance dialysis. Our objective was to describe practice approaches of US nephrologists who have provided conservative care for members of this population. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: A national sample of 21 nephrologists experienced in caring for patients with advanced CKD who decided not to start dialysis. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Grounded theory methods to identify dominant themes reflecting nephrologists' experiences with and approaches to conservative care for patients with advanced CKD. RESULTS: Nephrologists who participated in this study were primarily from academic practices (n=14) and urban areas (n=15). Two prominent themes emerged from qualitative analysis reflecting nephrologists' experiences with and approaches to conservative care: (1) person-centered practices, which described a holistic approach to care that included basing treatment decisions on what mattered most to individual patients, framing dialysis as an explicit choice, being mindful of sources of bias in medical decision making, and being flexible to the changing needs, values, and preferences of patients; and (2) improvising a care infrastructure, which described the challenges of managing patients conservatively within health systems that are not optimally configured to support their needs. Participating nephrologists described cobbling together resources, assuming a range of different health care roles, preparing patients to navigate health systems in which initiation of dialysis served as a powerful default, and championing the principles of conservative care among their colleagues. LIMITATIONS: The themes identified likely are not generalizable to most US nephrologists. CONCLUSIONS: Insights from a select group of US nephrologists who are early adopters of conservative care signal the need for a stronger cultural and health system commitment to building care models capable of supporting patients who choose to forgo dialysis.

Responsibilities, Strategies, and Practice Factors in Clinical Cost Conversations: a US Physician Survey.

BACKGROUND: Physicians play a key role in mitigating and managing costs in healthcare which are rising. OBJECTIVE: Conduct a cross-sectional survey in 2017, comparing results to a 2012 survey to understand US physicians' evolving attitudes and strategies concerning healthcare costs. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of 1200 US physicians from the AMA Masterfile. MEASURES: Physician views on responsibility for costs of care, enthusiasm for cost-saving strategies, cost-consciousness scale, and practice strategies on addressing cost. KEY RESULTS: Among 1200 physicians surveyed in 2017, 489 responded (41%). In 2017, slightly more physicians reported that physicians have a major responsibility for addressing healthcare costs (32% vs. 27%, p = 0.03). In 2017, more physicians attributed "major responsibility" for addressing healthcare costs to pharmaceutical companies (68% vs. 56%, p < 0.001) and hospital and health systems (63% vs. 56%%, p = 0.008) in contrast to 2012. Fewer respondents in 2017 attributed major responsibility for addressing costs to trial lawyers (53% vs. 59%, p = 0.007) and patients (42% vs. 52%, p < 0.0001) as compared to 2012. Physician enthusiasm for patient-focused cost-containment strategies like high deductible health plans and higher co-pays (62% vs. 42%, p < 0.0001 and 62% vs. 39%, p < 0.0001, not enthusiastic, respectively) declined. Physicians reported that when they discussed cost, it resulted in a change in disease management 56% of the time. Cost-consciousness within surveyed physicians had not changed meaningfully in 2017 since 2012 (31.7 vs. 31.2). Most physicians continued to agree that decision support tools showing costs would be helpful in their practice (> 70%). After adjusting for specialty, political affiliation, practice setting, age, and gender, only democratic/independent affiliation remained a significant predictor of cost-consciousness. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: US physicians increasingly attribute responsibility for rising healthcare costs to organizations and express less enthusiasm for strategies that increase patient out-of-pocket cost. Interventions that focus on physician knowledge and communication strategies regarding cost of care may be helpful.

Use of Potentially Nephrotoxic Medications by U.S. Adults with Chronic Kidney Disease: NHANES, 2011-2016.

BACKGROUND: People with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at risk for adverse events and/or CKD progression with use of renally eliminated or nephrotoxic medications. OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use by U.S. adults by CKD stage and self-reported CKD awareness. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 2011-2016 PARTICIPANTS: Non-pregnant adults with stages 3a (eGFR 45-59 mL/min/1.73 m2), 3b (eGFR 30-44), or 4-5 (eGFR < 30) CKD, stratified as CKD-aware/unaware. MAIN MEASURES: PIMs were identified on the basis of KDIGO guidelines, label information, and literature review. We calculated proportions using any and individual PIMs, assessing for differences over CKD awareness within each CKD stage. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, comorbidities, and insurance type. KEY RESULTS: Adjusted proportions of U.S. adults taking any PIM(s) exceeded 50% for all CKD stages and awareness categories, and were highest among CKD-unaware patients with stages 4-5 CKD: 66.6% (95% CI, 55.5-77.8). Proton pump inhibitors, opioids, metformin, sulfonylureas, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were all used frequently across CKD stages. NSAIDs were used less frequently when CKD-aware by patients with stage 3a CKD (2.2% [95% CI, - 0.3 to 4.7] vs. 10.7% [95% CI, 7.6 to 13.8]) and stages 4-5 CKD (0.8% [95% CI, - 0.9 to 2.5] vs. 16.5% [95% CI, 4.0 to 29.0]). Metformin was used less frequently when CKD-aware by patients with stage 3b CKD (8.1% [95% CI, 0.3-15.9] vs. 26.5% [95% CI, 17.4-35.7]) and stages 4-5 CKD (none vs. 20.8% [95% CI, 1.8-39.8]). The impact of CKD awareness was statistically significant after correction for multiple comparisons only for NSAIDs in stage 3a CKD. CONCLUSIONS: PIMs are frequently used by people with CKD, with some impact of CKD awareness on NSAID and metformin use. This may lead to adverse outcomes or hasten CKD progression, reinforcing the need for improved medication management among people with CKD.

Improving Blood Pressure Management in Primary Care Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: a Systematic Review of Interventions and Implementation Strategies.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is widely prevalent, associated with morbidity and mortality, but may be lessened with timely implementation of evidence-based strategies including blood pressure (BP) control. Nonetheless, an evidence-practice gap persists. We synthesize the evidence for clinician-facing interventions to improve hypertension management in CKD patients in primary care. METHODS: Electronic databases and related publications were queried for relevant studies. We used a conceptual model to address heterogeneity of interventions. We conducted a quantitative synthesis of interventions on blood pressure (BP) outcomes and a narrative synthesis of other CKD relevant clinical outcomes. Planned subgroup analyses were performed by (1) study design (randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized studies (NRS)); (2) intervention type (guideline-concordant decision support, shared care, pharmacist-facing); and (3) use of behavioral/implementation theory. RESULTS: Of 2704 manuscripts screened, 73 underwent full-text review; 22 met inclusion criteria. BP target achievement was reported in 15 and systolic BP reduction in 6 studies. Among RCTs, all interventions had a significant effect on BP control, (pooled OR 1.21; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.38). Subgroup analysis by intervention type showed significant effects for guideline-concordant decision support (pooled OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.27) but not shared care (pooled OR 1.71; 95% CI 0.96 to 3.03) or pharmacist-facing interventions (pooled OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.34). Subgroup analysis finding was replicated with pooling of RCTs and NRS. The five contributing studies showed large and significant reduction in systolic BP (pooled WMD - 3.86; 95% CI - 7.2 to - 0.55). Use of a behavioral/implementation theory had no impact, while RCTs showed smaller effect sizes than NRS. DISCUSSION: Process-oriented implementation strategies used with guideline-concordant decision support was a promising implementation approach. Better reporting guidelines on implementation would enable more useful synthesis of the efficacy of CKD clinical interventions integrated into primary care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018102441.

End-of-Life Decision-Making for ICU Patients With Limited English Proficiency: A Qualitative Study of Healthcare Team Insights.

OBJECTIVES: Research indicates that the increasing population of over 25 million people in the United States who have limited English proficiency experience differences in decision-making and subsequent care at end of life in the ICU when compared with the general population. The objective of this study was to assess the perceptions of healthcare team members about the factors that influence discussions and decision-making about end of life for patients and family members with limited English proficiency in the ICU. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews with ICU physicians, nurses, and interpreters. SETTING: Three ICUs at Mayo Clinic Rochester. SUBJECTS: Sixteen ICU physicians, 12 ICU nurses, and 12 interpreters. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We conducted 40 semistructured interviews. We identified six key differences in end-of-life decision-making for patients with limited English proficiency compared with patients without limited English proficiency: 1) clinician communication is modified and less frequent; 2) clinician ability to assess patient and family understanding is impaired; 3) relationship building is impaired; 4) patient and family understanding of decision-making concepts (e.g., palliative care) is impaired; 5) treatment limitations are often perceived to be unacceptable due to faith-based and cultural beliefs; and 6) patient and family decision-making styles are different. Facilitators of high-quality decision-making in patients with limited English proficiency included: 1) premeeting between clinician and interpreter; 2) interpretation that communicates empathy and caring; 3) bidirectional communication of cultural perspectives; 4) interpretation that improves messaging including appropriate word choice; and 5) clinician cultural humility. CONCLUSIONS: End-of-life decision-making is significantly different for ICU patients with limited English proficiency. Participants identified several barriers and facilitators to high-quality end-of-life decision-making for ICU patients and families with limited English proficiency. Awareness of these factors can facilitate interventions to improve high-quality, compassionate, and culturally sensitive decision-making for patients and families with limited English proficiency.

Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients With Do-Not-Intubate and Comfort-Measures-Only Orders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure and do-not-intubate or comfort-measures-only orders. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to January 1, 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of all design types that enrolled patients in the ICU or hospital ward who received noninvasive ventilation and had preset do-not-intubate or comfort-measures-only orders. DATA EXTRACTION: Data abstraction followed Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Data quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-seven studies evaluating 2,020 patients with do-not-intubate orders and three studies evaluating 200 patients with comfort-measures-only orders were included. In patients with do-not-intubate orders, the pooled survival was 56% (95% CI, 49-64%) at hospital discharge and 32% (95% CI, 21-45%) at 1 year. Hospital survival was 68% for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 68% for pulmonary edema, 41% for pneumonia, and 37% for patients with malignancy. Survival was comparable for patients treated in a hospital ward versus an ICU. Quality of life of survivors was not reduced compared with baseline, although few studies evaluated this. No studies evaluated quality of dying in nonsurvivors. In patients with comfort-measures-only orders, a single study showed that noninvasive ventilation was associated with mild reductions in dyspnea and opioid requirements. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of patients with do-not-intubate orders who received noninvasive ventilation survived to hospital discharge and at 1 year, with limited data showing no decrease in quality of life in survivors. Provision of noninvasive ventilation in a well-equipped hospital ward may be a viable alternative to the ICU for selected patients. Crucial questions regarding quality of life in survivors, quality of death in nonsurvivors, and the impact of noninvasive ventilation in patients with comfort-measures-only orders remain largely unanswered.

Predictors of early mortality and readmissions among dialysis patients undergoing lower extremity amputation.

OBJECTIVE: Patients receiving dialysis are at increased risk for lower extremity amputations (LEAs) and postoperative morbidity. Limited studies have examined differences in 30-day outcomes of mortality and health care use after amputation or the preoperative factors that relate to worsened outcomes in dialysis patients. Our objective was to examine dialysis dependency and other preoperative factors associated with readmission or death after LEA. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of dialysis-dependent and nondialysis patients undergoing major LEA in the 2012 to 2013 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Primary outcomes included death and hospital readmission within 30 days of amputation. RESULTS: Of 6468 patients, 1166 (18%) were dialysis dependent. The dialysis cohort had more blacks (39% vs 23%), diabetes (76% vs 58%), below-knee amputations (62% vs 55%), and in-hospital deaths (8% vs 3%; all P < .001). The 30-day postoperative death rates (15% vs 7%) and readmission rates (35% vs 20% per 30 person-days; both P < .001) were higher in dialysis patients. Among the live discharges, the rate of any readmission or death within 30 days from amputation was highest in those aged ≥50 years (40% per 30 person-days). Multivariable analyses in the dialysis cohort revealed increased age, above-knee amputation, decreased physical status, heart failure, high preoperative white blood cell count, and low platelet count to be associated with death (P < .05; C statistic, 0.75). The only preoperative factor associated with readmission in dialysis patients was race (P = .04; C statistic, 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Readmission or death after amputation is increased among dialysis patients. Predicting which dialysis patients are at highest risk for death is feasible, whereas predicting which will require readmission is less so. Risk factor identification may improve risk stratification, inform reimbursement policies, and allow targeted interventions to improve outcomes.

Which Readmissions May Be Preventable? Lessons Learned From a Posthospitalization Care Transitions Program for High-risk Elders.

BACKGROUND: Care transitions programs have been shown to reduce hospital readmissions. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to evaluate effects of the Mayo Clinic Care Transitions (MCCTs) Program on potentially preventable and nonpreventable 30-day unplanned readmissions among high-risk elders. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients enrolled in MCCT following hospitalization and propensity score-matched controls receiving usual primary care. SUBJECTS: The subjects were primary care patients, who were 60 years or older, at high-risk for readmission, and hospitalized for any cause between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2013. MEASURES: Hospital readmission within 30 days. The 3M algorithm was used to identify potentially preventable readmissions. Readmissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions, a subset of preventable readmissions identified by the 3M algorithm, were also assessed. RESULTS: The study cohort included 365 pairs of MCCT enrollees and propensity score-matched controls. Patients were similar in age (mean 83 y) and other baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, including reason for index hospitalization. MCCT enrollees had a significantly lower all-cause readmission rate [12.4% (95% confidence interval: CI, 8.9-15.7) vs. 20.1% (15.8-24.1); P=0.004] resulting from a decrease in potentially preventable readmissions [8.4% (95% CI, 5.5-11.3) vs. 14.3% (95% CI, 10.5-17.9); P=0.01]. Few potentially preventable readmissions were for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (6.7% vs. 12.0%). The rates of nonpotentially preventable readmissions were similar [4.3% (95% CI, 2.2-6.5) vs. 6.7% (95% CI, 4.0-9.4); P=0.16]. Potentially preventable readmissions were reduced by 44% (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.88; P=0.01) with no change in other readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: The MCCT significantly reduces preventable readmissions, suggesting that access to multidisciplinary care can reduce readmissions and improve outcomes for high-risk elders.

Care of the dialysis patient: Primary provider involvement and resource utilization patterns - a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Efficient and safe delivery of care to dialysis patients is essential. Concerns have been raised regarding the ability of accountable care organizations to adequately serve this high-risk population. Little is known about primary care involvement in the care of dialysis patients. This study sought to describe the extent of primary care provider (PCP) involvement in the care of hemodialysis patients and the outcomes associated with that involvement. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, patients accessing a Midwestern dialysis network from 2001 to 2010 linked to United States Renal Database System and with >90 days follow up were identified (n = 2985). Outpatient visits were identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT)-4 codes, provider specialty, and grouped into quartiles-based on proportion of PCP visits per person-year (ppy). Top and bottom quartiles represented patients with high primary care (HPC) or low primary care (LPC), respectively. Patient characteristics and health care utilization were measured and compared across patient groups. RESULTS: Dialysis patients had an overall average of 4.5 PCP visits ppy, ranging from 0.6 in the LPC group to 6.9 in the HPC group. HPC patients were more likely female (43.4% vs. 35.3%), older (64.0 yrs. vs. 60.0 yrs), and with more comorbidities (Charlson 7.0 vs 6.0). HPC patients had higher utilization (hospitalizations 2.2 vs. 1.8 ppy; emergency department visits 1.6 vs 1.2 ppy) and worse survival (3.9 vs 4.3 yrs) and transplant rates (16.3 vs. 31.5). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs are significantly involved in the care of hemodialysis patients. Patients with HPC are older, sicker, and utilize more resources than those managed primarily by nephrologists. After adjusting for confounders, there is no difference in outcomes between the groups. Further studies are needed to better understand whether there is causal impact of primary care involvement on patient survival.

Self-Reported Rationing Behavior Among US Physicians: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Rationing is a controversial topic among US physicians. Understanding their attitudes and behaviors around rationing may be essential to a more open and sensible professional discourse on this important but controversial topic. OBJECTIVE: To describe rationing behavior and associated factors among US physicians. DESIGN: Survey mailed to US physicians in 2012 to evaluate self-reported rationing behavior and variables related to this behavior. SETTING: US physicians across a full spectrum of practice settings. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2541 respondents, representing 65.6 % of the original mailing list of 3872 US addresses. INTERVENTIONS: The study was a cross-sectional analysis of physician attitudes and self-reported behaviors, with neutral language representations of the behaviors as well as an embedded experiment to test the influence of the word "ration" on perceived responsibility. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall percentage of respondents reporting rationing behavior in various contexts and assessment of attitudes toward rationing. KEY RESULTS: In total, 1348 respondents (53.1 %) reported having personally refrained within the past 6 months from using specific clinical services that would have provided the best patient care, because of health system cost. Prescription drugs (n = 1073 [48.3 %]) and magnetic resonance imaging (n = 922 [44.5 %]) were most frequently rationed. Surgical and procedural specialists were less likely to report rationing behavior (adjusted odds ratio [OR] [95 % CI], 0.8 [0.9-0.9] and 0.5 [0.4-0.6], respectively) compared to primary care. Compared with small or solo practices, those in medical school settings reported less rationing (adjusted OR [95 % CI], 0.4 [0.2-0.7]). Physicians who self-identified as very or somewhat liberal were significantly less likely to report rationing (adjusted OR [95 % CI], 0.7 [0.6-0.9]) than those self-reporting being very or somewhat conservative. A more positive opinion about rationing tended to align with greater odds of rationing. CONCLUSIONS: More than one-half of respondents engaged in behavior consistent with rationing. Practicing physicians in specific subgroups were more likely to report rationing behavior.

Predictors of outpatient kidney function recovery among patients who initiate hemodialysis in the hospital.

BACKGROUND: Recent policy clarifications by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have changed access to outpatient dialysis care at end-stage renal disease (ESRD) facilities for individuals with acute kidney injury in the United States. Tools to predict "ESRD" and "acute" status in terms of kidney function recovery among patients who previously initiated dialysis therapy in the hospital could help inform patient management decisions. STUDY DESIGN: Historical cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Incident hemodialysis patients in the Mayo Clinic Health System who initiated in-hospital renal replacement therapy (RRT) and continued outpatient dialysis following hospital dismissal (2006 through 2009). PREDICTOR: Baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), acute tubular necrosis from sepsis or surgery, heart failure, intensive care unit, and dialysis access. OUTCOMES: Kidney function recovery defined as sufficient kidney function for outpatient hemodialysis therapy discontinuation. RESULTS: Cohort consisted of 281 patients with a mean age of 64 years, 63% men, 45% with heart failure, and baseline eGFR≥30mL/min/1.73m(2) in 46%. During a median of 8 months, 52 (19%) recovered, most (94%) within 6 months. Higher baseline eGFR (HR per 10-mL/min/1.73m(2) increase eGFR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16-1.39; P<0.001), acute tubular necrosis from sepsis or surgery (HR, 3.34; 95% CI, 1.83-6.24; P<0.001), and heart failure (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.78, P=0.007) were independent predictors of recovery within 6 months, whereas first RRT in the intensive care unit and catheter dialysis access were not. There was a positive interaction between absence of heart failure and eGFR≥30mL/min/1.73m(2) for predicting kidney function recovery (P<0.001). LIMITATIONS: Sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Kidney function recovery in the outpatient hemodialysis unit following in-hospital RRT initiation is not rare. As expected, higher baseline eGFR is an important determinant of recovery. However, patients with heart failure are less likely to recover even with a higher baseline eGFR. Consideration of these factors at hospital discharge informs decisions on ESRD status designation and long-term hemodialysis care.

Ethical challenges with hemodialysis patients who lack decision-making capacity: behavioral issues, surrogate decision-makers, and end-of-life situations.

Hemodialysis (HD) is routinely offered to patients with end-stage renal disease in the United States who are ineligible for other renal replacement modalities. The frequency of HD among the US population is greater than all other countries, except Taiwan and Japan. In US, patients are often dialyzed irrespective of age, comorbidities, prognosis, or decision-making capacity. Determination of when patients can no longer dialyze is variable and can be dialysis-center specific. Determinants may be related to progressive comorbidities and frailty, mobility or access issues, patient self-determination, or an inability to tolerate the treatment safely for any number of reasons (e.g., hypotension, behavioral issues). Behavioral issues may impact the safety of not only patients themselves, but also those around them. In this article the authors present the case of an elderly patient on HD with progressive cognitive impairment and combative behavior placing him and others at risk of physical harm. The authors discuss the medical, ethical, legal, and psychosocial challenges to care of such patients who lack decision-making capacity with a focus on variable approaches by regions and culture. This manuscript provides recommendations and highlights resources to assist nephrologists, dialysis personnel, ethics consultants, and palliative medicine teams in managing such patients to resolve conflict.

Impact of Program Changes Including Telemedicine and Telephonic Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Preventing 30-Day Hospital Readmission for Patients in a Care Transitions Program.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: To describe health outcomes of older adults enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Care Transitions (MCCT) program before and during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to unenrolled patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults (age >60 years) in the MCCT program compared to a usual care control group from January 1, 2019, to September 20, 2022. The MCCT program involved a home, telephonic, or telemedicine visit by an advanced care provider. Outcomes were 30- and 180-day hospital readmissions, emergency department (ED) visit, and mortality. We performed a subgroup analysis after March 1, 2020 (during the pandemic). We analyzed data with Cox proportional hazards regression models and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of the 1,012 patients total, 354 were in the MCCT program and 658 were in the usual care group with a mean (SD) age of 81.1 (9.1) years overall. Thirty-day readmission was 16.9% (60 of 354) for MCCT patients and 14.7% (97 of 658) for usual care patients (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.88-1.75). During the pandemic, the 30-day readmission rate was 15.1% (28 of 186) for MCCT patients and 14.9% (68 of 455) for usual care patients (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.75-1.91). There was no difference between groups for 180-day hospitalization, 30- or 180-day ED visit, and 30- or 180-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous factors involving patients, providers, and health care delivery systems during the pandemic most likely contributed to these findings.

Decisional Regret Surrounding Dialysis Initiation: A Comparative Analysis.

Rationale & Objective: Dialysis comes with a substantial treatment burden, so patients must select care plans that align with their preferences. We aimed to deepen the understanding of decisional regret with dialysis choices. Study Design: This study had a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design. Setting & Participants: All patients from a single academic medical center prescribed maintenance in-center hemodialysis or presenting for home hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis check-up during 3 weeks were approached for survey. A total of 78 patients agreed to participate. Patients with the highest (15 patients) and lowest decisional regret (20 patients) were invited to semistructured interviews. Predictors: Decisional regret scale and illness intrusiveness scale were used in this study. Analytical Approach: Quantitatively, we examined correlations between the decision regret scale and illness intrusiveness scale and sorted patients into the highest and lowest decision regret scale quartiles for further interviews; then, we compared patient characteristics between those that consented to interview in high and low decisional regret. Qualitatively, we used an adapted grounded theory approach to examine differences between interviewed patients with high and low decisional regret. Results: Of patients invited to participate in the interviews, 21 patients (8 high regret, 13 low regret) agreed. We observed that patients with high decisional regret displayed resignation toward dialysis, disruption of their sense of self and social roles, and self-blame, whereas patients with low decisional regret demonstrated positivity, integration of dialysis into their identity, and self-compassion. Limitations: Patients with the highest levels of decisional regret may have already withdrawn from dialysis. Patients could complete interviews in any location (eg, home, dialysis unit, and clinical office), which may have influenced patient disclosure. Conclusions: Although all patients experienced disruption after dialysis initiation, patients' approach to adversity differs between patients experiencing high versus low regret. This study identifies emotional responses to dialysis that may be modifiable through patient-support interventions.

As part of a quality improvement initiative in our dialysis practice, a patient stated, "I wish I never started dialysis." This quote served as the catalyst for embarking on a research project with the aim to understand why patients living with end-stage kidney disease have regret about starting and continuing dialysis, a lifesaving but time-intensive measure. We surveyed and interviewed patients on the topic and learned that patients experiencing regret had a disrupted sense of self and blamed themselves for their need of dialysis. Patients with little to no regret demonstrated positivity and self-compassion. These findings will help health care professionals as they work with patients considering dialysis or having newly started dialysis.

Dialysis in the frail elderly--a current ethical problem, an impending ethical crisis.

The current practice of hemodialysis for the frail elderly frequently ignores core bioethical principles. Lack of transparency and shared decision making coupled with financial incentives to treat have resulted in problems of overtreatment near the end of life. Imminent changes in reimbursement for hemodialysis will reverse the financial incentives to favor not treating high-risk patients. In this article, we describe what is empirically known about the approach to hemodialysis today, and how it violates four core ethical principles. We then discuss how the new financial system turns physician and organizational incentives upside down in ways that may exacerbate the ethical dilemmas, but in the opposite direction.