Nurse Caseload and Patient Survival in Hemodialysis Units: A Korean Nationwide Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: The patient-to-nurse ratio is highly variable among dialysis facilities. However, there is little known about the association between nurse caseload and hemodialysis (HD) patient outcomes. We evaluated the association between patient-to-nurse ratio and mortality in the Korean patients undergoing HD. METHODS: We used HD quality assessment data and National Health Insurance Service claim data from the year of 2013 for collecting demographic and clinical data. Altogether, 21,817 patients who participated in the HD quality assessment in 2013 were included in the study. Nurse caseload was defined as the number of HD sessions performed by a nurse per working day. The patients were divided into two groups according to the nurse caseload as follows: low nurse caseload group (≤6.0) and high nurse caseload group (>6.0). We analyzed mortality risk based on nurse caseload using the Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: The mean age was 59.1 years, and males accounted for 58.5%. The mean hemoglobin was 10.6 g/dL and albumin was 3.99 g/dL. At the mean follow-up duration of 51.7 (20.6) months, the ratio between low and high groups was 69.6% (15,184 patients) versus 30.4% (6,633 patients). The patients in the high nurse caseload group were older and showed lower levels of hemoglobin, albumin, calcium, and iron saturation and higher levels of phosphorus than those in the low nurse caseload group. A high nurse caseload was associated with a lower survival rate. In the adjusted Cox analysis, a high nurse caseload was an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.14; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: High nurse caseload was associated with an increased mortality risk among the patients undergoing HD. Further prospective studies are needed to determine whether a caseload of nursing staff can improve the prognosis of HD patients.

Hemodialysis Emergencies: Core Curriculum 2021.

Since maintenance hemodialysis (HD) first became available in the United States in 1962, there has been tremendous growth in the population of patients with kidney failure. HD has become a routine treatment carried out in outpatient clinics, hospitals, nursing facilities, and in patients' homes. Although it is a complex procedure, HD is quite safe. Serious complications are uncommon due to the use of modern HD machines and water treatment systems as well as the development of strict protocols to monitor various aspects of the HD treatment. The practicing nephrologist must be knowledgeable about life-threatening complications that can occur during HD and be able to recognize, manage, and prevent them. This installment in the AJKD Core Curriculum in Nephrology reviews the pathogenesis, management, and prevention of 9 HD emergencies. The HD emergencies covered include dialyzer reactions, dialysis disequilibrium syndrome, uremic/dialysis-associated pericarditis, air embolism, venous needle dislodgement, vascular access hemorrhage, hemolysis, dialysis water contamination, and arrhythmia episodes.

Patient Navigation: Addressing Social Challenges in Dialysis Patients.

Members of racial and ethnic minority groups make up nearly 50% of US patients with end-stage kidney disease and face a disproportionate burden of socioeconomic challenges (ie, low income, job insecurity, low educational attainment, housing instability, and communication challenges) compared with non-Hispanic whites. Patients with end-stage kidney disease who face social challenges often have poor patient-centered and clinical outcomes. These challenges may have a negative impact on quality-of-care performance measures for dialysis facilities caring for primarily minority and low-income patients. One path toward improving outcomes for this group is to develop culturally tailored interventions that provide individualized support, potentially improving patient-centered, clinical, and health system outcomes by addressing social challenges. One such approach is using community-based culturally and linguistically concordant patient navigators, who can serve as a bridge between the patient and the health care system. Evidence points to the effectiveness of patient navigators in the provision of cancer care and, to a lesser extent, caring for people with chronic kidney disease and those who have undergone kidney transplantation. However, little is known about the effectiveness of patient navigators in the care of patients with kidney failure receiving dialysis, who experience a number of remediable social challenges.

Arteriovenous Fistula Use in the United States and Dialysis Facility-Level Comorbidity Burden.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Patients with multiple comorbid conditions are less likely to use an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) for hemodialysis vascular access. Some dialysis facilities have high rates of AVF placement despite having patients with many comorbid conditions. This study describes variation in facility-level use of AVFs across the facility-level burden of patient comorbid conditions. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Medicare patients receiving hemodialysis for 1 year or more in US dialysis facilities. PREDICTORS: Facility-level burden of patient comorbid conditions; patient characteristics. OUTCOMES: Odds of AVFs versus other access types; facility-level use of AVFs. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Facility-level comorbidity burden was calculated by summing individual comorbid conditions, determining the average per patient, then defining 11 groups based on facility percentile ranking. Generalized estimating equations with a logit link were used to estimate the odds of AVF placement at the patient level. For the facility-level analysis, a generalized estimating equation model with the identity link was fit to characterize the percentage of AVF use at each facility. RESULTS: Overall, AVF use was 65.8% in 315,919 prevalent hemodialysis patients among 5,813 facilities. After adjustment for patient characteristics, AVF use was 0.27, 0.30, 1.05, and 1.74 percentage points lower than the median among facilities in the 61st to 70th, 71st to 80th, 81st to 90th, and 91st to 99th percentiles of comorbidity, respectively, and 0.42, 0.63, 1.34, and 1.90 percentage points higher than the median among facilities in the 31st to 40th, 21st to 30th, 11th to 20th, and 1st to 10th percentiles of comorbidity, respectively. Facilities in the greater than 99th percentile of comorbidity burden had AVF use that was 3.47 percentage points lower than the median. Facilities in the less than 1st percentile of comorbidity burden had AVF use that was 2.64 percentage points greater than the median. LIMITATIONS: Limited to Medicare dialysis-dependent patients treated for 1 year or more. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for patient characteristics, we found small differences in facility rates of AVF use except in the extremes of high or low levels of comorbidity burden. Our study demonstrates that dialysis facilities with a relatively high patient comorbidity burden can achieve similar fistula rates as facilities with healthier patients. Although high comorbidity burden does not explain low facility AVF use, additional study is needed to understand differences in AVF use rates between facilities with similar comorbidity burdens.

Freestanding Dialysis Facility Quality Incentive Program Scores and Mortality Among Incident Dialysis Patients in the United States.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services introduced the Quality Incentive Program (QIP) along with the bundled payment reform to improve the quality of dialysis care in the United States. The QIP has been criticized for using easily obtained laboratory indicators without patient-centered measures and for a lack of evidence for an association between QIP indicators and patient outcomes. This study examined the association between dialysis facility QIP performance scores and survival among patients after initiation of dialysis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Study participants included 84,493 patients represented in the US Renal Disease System's patient-level data who had initiated dialysis between January 1, 2013, and December 1, 2013, and who did not, during the first 90 days after dialysis initiation, die, receive a transplant, or become lost to follow-up. Patients were followed up for the study outcome through March 31, 2014. PREDICTOR: Dialysis facility QIP scores. OUTCOME: Mortality. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Using a unique facility identifier, we linked Medicare freestanding dialysis facility data from 2015 with US Renal Disease System patient-level data. Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator was used to describe the survival of study participants. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the multivariable association between facility performance scores and patient survival. RESULTS: Excluding patients who died during the first 90 days of dialysis, 11.8% of patients died during an average follow-up of 5 months. Facilities with QIP scores<45 (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.15-1.68) and 45 to<60 (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.33) had higher patient mortality rates than facilities with scores≥90. LIMITATIONS: Because the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have revised QIP criteria each year, the findings may not relate to years other than those studied. CONCLUSIONS: Dialysis facilities characterized by lower QIP scores were associated with higher rates of patient mortality. These findings need to be replicated to assess their consistency over time.

Using Patient Experience Survey Data to Improve In-Center Hemodialysis Care: A Practical Review.

Patient experience is an integral aspect of the care we deliver to our dialysis patients. Standardized evaluation of patient experience with in-center hemodialysis started in the United States in 2012 with the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH CAHPS) survey. Over time there have been a few changes to this survey, how it is administered, and how it fits within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program. Although the importance of this survey has been growing, knowledge of this survey among nephrologists has lagged. We provide a review of the survey development and how its use has evolved since 2012. We discuss in detail research done on this survey to date, including survey psychometric evaluation. We highlight gaps in our knowledge that need further research and end with general recommendations to improve patient experience within hemodialysis facilities, which we believe is a worthy goal for all members of the dialysis team.

Community Racial Composition and Hospitalization Among Patients Receiving In-Center Hemodialysis.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Community racial composition has been shown to be associated with mortality in patients receiving maintenenance dialysis. It is unclear whether living in communities with predominantly Black residents is also associated with risk for hospitalization among patients receiving hemodialysis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from a cohort of patients receiving hemodialysis. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 4,567 patients treated in 154 dialysis facilities located in 127 unique zip codes and enrolled in US Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) phases 4 to 5 (2010-2015). EXPOSURE: Tertile of percentage of Black residents within zip code of patients' dialysis facility, defined through a link to the American Community Survey. OUTCOME: Rate of hospitalizations during the study period. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Associations of patient-, facility-, and community-level variables with community's percentage of Black residents were assessed using analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, or χ2/Fisher exact tests. Negative binomial regression was used to estimate the incidence rate ratio for hospitalizations between these communities, with and without adjustment for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: Mean age of study patients was 62.7 years. 53% were White, 27% were Black, and 45% were women. Median and threshold percentages of Black residents in zip codes in which dialysis facilities were located were 34.2% and≥14.4% for tertile 3 and 1.0% and≤1.8% for tertile 1, respectively. Compared with those in tertile 1 facilities, patients in tertile 3 facilities were more likely to be younger, be Black, live in urban communities with lower socioeconomic status, have a catheter as vascular access, and have fewer comorbid conditions. Patients dialyzing in communities with the highest tertile of Black residents experienced a higher adjusted rate of hospitalization (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.56) compared with those treated in communities within the lowest tertile. LIMITATIONS: Potential residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: The risk for hospitalization for patients receiving maintenance dialysis is higher among those treated in communities with a higher percentage of Black residents after adjustment for dialysis care, patient demographics, and comorbid conditions. Understanding the cause of this association should be a priority of future investigation.

Consolidation in dialysis Markets-Causes, consequences, and the role of policy.

The dialysis industry is one of the most highly concentrated healthcare sectors in the United States. Despite decades of growth in the number of patients with end-stage renal disease and in the size of dialysis markets, two large dialysis organizations currently care for more than two-thirds of the dialysis population. Economies of scale, bargaining leverage with suppliers and private insurers, barriers to entry, and government regulations have contributed to highly concentrated dialysis markets by conferring advantages to larger organizations. Consolidated dialysis markets have coincided with both positive and negative trends in healthcare costs and outcomes. Costs per patient receiving dialysis have grown at a slower rate than per capita Medicare costs, while access to dialysis care remains available across a wide socioeconomic range. Mortality rates have declined despite a sicker dialysis patient population. Yet, concerns remain about the cost and quality of dialysis care. Evidence suggests that chain ownership, for profit status, and less market competition may negatively impact health outcomes. Future policies and innovations involving kidney health may temporarily disrupt consolidation. However, if the underlying mechanisms that contributed to past consolidation persist, dialysis markets may remain highly concentrated over the long term.

Multicenter Outbreak of Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections in Hemodialysis Patients.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Contaminated water and other fluids are increasingly recognized to be associated with health care-associated infections. We investigated an outbreak of Gram-negative bloodstream infections at 3 outpatient hemodialysis facilities. STUDY DESIGN: Matched case-control investigations. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients who received hemodialysis at Facility A, B, or C from July 2015 to November 2016. EXPOSURES: Infection control practices, sources of water, dialyzer reuse, injection medication handling, dialysis circuit priming, water and dialysate test findings, environmental reservoirs such as wall boxes, vascular access care practices, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, and whole-genome sequencing of bacterial isolates. OUTCOMES: Cases were defined by a positive blood culture for any Gram-negative bacteria drawn July 1, 2015 to November 30, 2016 from a patient who had received hemodialysis at Facility A, B, or C. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Exposures in cases and controls were compared using matched univariate conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: 58 cases of Gram-negative bloodstream infection occurred; 48 (83%) required hospitalization. The predominant organisms were Serratia marcescens (n=21) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n=12). Compared with controls, cases had higher odds of using a central venous catheter for dialysis (matched odds ratio, 54.32; lower bound of the 95% CI, 12.19). Facility staff reported pooling and regurgitation of waste fluid at recessed wall boxes that house connections for dialysate components and the effluent drain within dialysis treatment stations. Environmental samples yielded S marcescens and P aeruginosa from wall boxes. S marcescens isolated from wall boxes and case-patients from the same facilities were closely related by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and whole-genome sequencing. We identified opportunities for health care workers' hands to contaminate central venous catheters with contaminated fluid from the wall boxes. LIMITATIONS: Limited patient isolates for testing, on-site investigation occurred after peak of infections. CONCLUSIONS: This large outbreak was linked to wall boxes, a previously undescribed source of contaminated fluid and biofilms in the immediate patient care environment.

Inter-unit reliability for nonlinear models.

In monitoring dialysis facilities, various quality measures are used in order to assess the performance and quality of care. The inter-unit reliability (IUR) describes the proportion of variation in the quality measure that is due to the between-facility variation. If the measure under evaluation is a simple average across normally distributed patient outcomes for each facility, the IUR is based on a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). However, more complex quality measures are not simple averages of individual outcomes. Even the standard bootstrap methods are inadequate because the computational burden increases quickly as the sample size grows, prohibiting its application in large-scale studies. To generalize the IUR to complex quality measures used in nonlinear models, we propose an approach combining the strengths of ANOVA and resampling. The proposed method is computationally efficient and can be applied to large-scale biomedical data with complex data structures. The method is exemplified in various measures of dialysis facilities using national dialysis data.

Process evaluation of the RaDIANT community study: a dialysis facility-level intervention to increase referral for kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The Reducing Disparities in Access to kidNey Transplantation Community Study (RaDIANT) was an End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Network 6-developed, dialysis facility-level randomized trial testing the effectiveness of a 1-year multicomponent education and quality improvement intervention in increasing referral for kidney transplant evaluation among selected Georgia dialysis facilities. METHODS: To assess implementation of the RaDIANT intervention, we conducted a process evaluation at the conclusion of the intervention period (January-December 2014). We administered a 20-item survey to the staff involved with transplant education in 67 dialysis facilities randomized to participate in intervention activities. Survey items assessed facility participation in the intervention (fidelity and reach), helpfulness and willingness to continue intervention activities (sustainability), suggestions for improving intervention components (sustainability), and factors that may have influenced participation and study outcomes (context). We defined high fidelity to the intervention as completing 11 or more activities, and high participation in an activity as having at least 75% participation across intervention facilities. RESULTS: Staff from 65 of the 67 dialysis facilities completed the questionnaire, and more than half (50.8%) reported high adherence (fidelity) to RaDIANT intervention requirements. Nearly two-thirds (63.1%) of facilities reported that RaDIANT intervention activities were helpful or very helpful, with 90.8% of facilities willing to continue at least one intervention component beyond the study period. Intervention components with high participation emphasized staff and patient-level education, including in-service staff orientations, patient and family education programs, and patient educational materials. Suggested improvements for intervention activities emphasized addressing financial barriers to transplantation, with financial education materials perceived as most helpful among RaDIANT educational materials. Variation in facility-level fidelity of the RADIANT intervention did not significantly influence the mean difference in proportion of patients referred pre- (2013) and post-intervention (2014). CONCLUSIONS: We found high fidelity to the RaDIANT multicomponent intervention at the majority of intervention facilities, with sustainability of select intervention components at intervention facilities and feasibility for dissemination across ESRD Networks. Future modification of the intervention should emphasize financial education regarding kidney transplantation and amend intervention components that facilities perceive as time-intensive or non-sustainable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT02092727 . Registered 13 Mar 2014 (retrospectively registered).

A Randomized Trial to Reduce Disparities in Referral for Transplant Evaluation.

Georgia has the lowest kidney transplant rates in the United States and substantial racial disparities in transplantation. We determined the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention to increase referral of patients on dialysis for transplant evaluation in the Reducing Disparities in Access to kidNey Transplantation Community Study (RaDIANT), a randomized, dialysis facility-based, controlled trial involving >9000 patients receiving dialysis from 134 dialysis facilities in Georgia. In December of 2013, we selected dialysis facilities with either low transplant referral or racial disparity in referral. The intervention consisted of transplant education and engagement activities targeting dialysis facility leadership, staff, and patients conducted from January to December of 2014. We examined the proportion of patients with prevalent ESRD in each facility referred for transplant within 1 year as the primary outcome, and disparity in the referral of black and white patients as a secondary outcome. Compared with control facilities, intervention facilities referred a higher proportion of patients for transplant at 12 months (adjusted mean difference [aMD], 7.3%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 5.5% to 9.2%; odds ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.36 to 2.26). The difference between intervention and control facilities in the proportion of patients referred for transplant was higher among black patients (aMD, 6.4%; 95% CI, 4.3% to 8.6%) than white patients (aMD, 3.7%; 95% CI, 1.6% to 5.9%; P<0.05). In conclusion, this intervention increased referral and improved equity in kidney transplant referral for patients on dialysis in Georgia; long-term follow-up is needed to determine whether these effects led to more transplants.

Referral for Kidney Transplantation and Indicators of Quality of Dialysis Care: A Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis facility performance measures to improve access to kidney transplantation are being considered. Referral of patients for kidney transplantation evaluation by the dialysis facility is one potential indicator, but limited data exist to evaluate whether referral is associated with existing dialysis facility quality indicators. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 12,926 incident (July 2005 to September 2011) adult (aged 18-69 years) patients treated at 241 dialysis facilities with complete quality indicator information from US national registry data linked to transplantation referral data from all 3 Georgia kidney transplantation centers. FACTORS: Facility performance on dialysis quality indicators (high, intermediate, and low tertiles). OUTCOME: Percentages of patients referred within 1 year of dialysis therapy initiation at dialysis facility. RESULTS: Overall, a median of 25.4% of patients were referred for kidney transplantation within 1 year of dialysis therapy initiation. Higher facility-level referral was associated with better performance with respect to standardized transplantation ratio (high, 28.6%; intermediate, 25.1%; and low, 22.9%; P=0.001) and percentage waitlisted (high, 30.7%; intermediate, 26.8%; and low, 19.2%; P<0.001). Facility-level referral was not associated with indicators of quality of care associated with dialysis therapy initiation, including percentage of incident patients being informed of transplantation options. For most non-transplantation-related indicators of high-quality care, including those capturing mortality, morbidity, and anemia management, better performance was not associated with higher facility-level transplantation referral. LIMITATIONS: Potential ecologic fallacy and residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Transplantation referral among patients at dialysis facilities does not appear to be associated with overall quality of dialysis care at the facility. Quality indicators related to kidney transplantation were positively associated with, but not entirely correspondent with, higher percentages of patients referred for kidney transplantation evaluation from dialysis facilities. These results suggest that facility-level referral, which is within the control of the dialysis facility, may provide information about the quality of dialysis care beyond current indicators.

Interdialytic Weight Gain: Trends, Predictors, and Associated Outcomes in the International Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS).

BACKGROUND: High interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) is associated with adverse outcomes in hemodialysis (HD) patients. We identified temporal and regional trends in IDWG, predictors of IDWG, and associations of IDWG with clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis 1: sequential cross-sections to identify facility- and patient-level predictors of IDWG and their temporal trends. Analysis 2: prospective cohort study to assess associations between IDWG and mortality and hospitalization risk. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 21,919 participants on HD therapy for 1 year or longer in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) phases 2 to 5 (2002-2014). PREDICTORS: Analysis 1: study phase, patient demographics and comorbid conditions, HD facility practices. Analysis 2: relative IDWG, expressed as percentage of post-HD weight (<0%, 0%-0.99%, 1%-2.49%, 2.5%-3.99% [reference], 4%-5.69%, and ≥5.7%). OUTCOMES: Analysis 1: relative IDWG as a continuous variable using linear mixed models; analysis 2: mortality; all-cause and cause-specific hospitalization using Cox regression, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: From phase 2 to 5, IDWG declined in the United States (-0.29kg; -0.5% of post-HD weight), Canada (-0.25kg; -0.8%), and Europe (-0.22kg; -0.5%), with more modest declines in Japan and Australia/New Zealand. Among modifiable factors associated with IDWG, the most notable was facility mean dialysate sodium concentration: every 1-mEq/L greater dialysate sodium concentration was associated with 0.13 (95% CI, 0.11-0.16) greater relative IDWG. Compared to relative IDWG of 2.5% to 3.99%, there was elevated risk for mortality with relative IDWG≥5.7% (adjusted HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.08-1.40) and elevated risk for fluid-overload hospitalization with relative IDWG≥4% (HRs of 1.28 [95% CI, 1.09-1.49] and 1.64 [95% CI, 1.27-2.13] for relative IDWGs of 4%-5.69% and ≥5.7%, respectively). LIMITATIONS: Possible residual confounding. No dietary salt intake data. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in IDWG during the past decade were partially explained by reductions in dialysate sodium concentration. Focusing quality improvement strategies on reducing occurrences of high IDWG may improve outcomes in HD patients.

Safety of Intravenous Iron in Hemodialysis: Longer-term Comparisons of Iron Sucrose Versus Sodium Ferric Gluconate Complex.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists about any differences in longer-term safety across different intravenous iron formulations routinely used in hemodialysis (HD) patients. We exploited a natural experiment to compare outcomes of patients initiating HD therapy in facilities that predominantly (in ≥90% of their patients) used iron sucrose versus sodium ferric gluconate complex. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of incident HD patients. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Using the US Renal Data System, we hard-matched on geographic region and center characteristics HD facilities predominantly using ferric gluconate with similar ones using iron sucrose. Subsequently, incident HD patients were assigned to their facility iron formulation exposure. INTERVENTION: Facility-level use of iron sucrose versus ferric gluconate. OUTCOMES: Patients were followed up for mortality from any, cardiovascular, or infectious causes. Medicare-insured patients were followed up for infectious and cardiovascular (stroke or myocardial infarction) hospitalizations and for composite outcomes with the corresponding cause-specific deaths. MEASUREMENTS: HRs. RESULTS: We matched 2,015 iron sucrose facilities with 2,015 ferric gluconate facilities, in which 51,603 patients (iron sucrose, 24,911; ferric gluconate, 26,692) subsequently initiated HD therapy. All recorded patient characteristics were balanced between groups. Over 49,989 person-years, 10,381 deaths (3,908 cardiovascular and 1,209 infectious) occurred. Adjusted all-cause (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03), cardiovascular (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.03), and infectious mortality (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.86-1.13) did not differ between iron sucrose and ferric gluconate facilities. Among Medicare beneficiaries, no differences between ferric gluconate and iron sucrose facilities were observed in fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular events (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.09). The composite infectious end point occurred less frequently in iron sucrose versus ferric gluconate facilities (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96). LIMITATIONS: Unobserved selection bias from nonrandom treatment assignment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients initiating HD therapy in facilities almost exclusively using iron sucrose versus ferric gluconate had similar longer-term outcomes. However, there was a small decrease in infectious hospitalizations and deaths in patients dialyzing in facilities predominantly using iron sucrose. This difference may be due to residual confounding, random chance, or a causal effect.

Dialysis fluid endotoxin level and mortality in maintenance hemodialysis: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The quality of dialysis fluid water might play an important role in hemodialysis patient outcomes. Although targeted endotoxin levels of dialysis fluid vary among countries, evidence of the contribution of these levels to mortality in hemodialysis patients is lacking. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using data from the Japan Renal Data Registry, a nationwide annual survey. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 130,781 patients receiving thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis for more than 6 months were enrolled at 2,746 facilities in Japan at the end of 2006. None of the patients changed facility or treatment modality during 2007. PREDICTOR: Highest endotoxin level in dialysis fluid reported by each facility during 2006. Patients were categorized by facility endotoxin level into the following groups: <0.001, 0.001 to <0.01, 0.01 to <0.05, 0.05 to <0.1, and ≥0.1EU/mL. Age, sex, dialysis vintage, diabetes mellitus as a primary cause of end-stage renal disease, Kt/V, normalized protein catabolic rate, dialysis session duration, serum albumin, and hemoglobin were measured as potential confounders. OUTCOME: All-cause mortality, censored by transplantation; withdrawal from dialysis treatment; or end of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 130,781 hemodialysis patients, 91.2% had facility endotoxin levels below the limit set for dialysis fluid in Japan (<0.05EU/mL). During a 1-year follow-up, 8,978 (6.9%) patients died of all causes. The rate of all-cause mortality at 1 year was highest in the ≥0.1-EU/mL category (88.0 deaths/1,000 person-years). Patients in the ≥0.1-EU/mL group exhibited an increased risk of all-cause mortality of 28% (95% CI, 10%-48%) compared to the <0.001-EU/mL group. LIMITATIONS: Endotoxin level in dialysis fluid is reported as categorical data. No information about variation in endotoxin levels in dialysis fluid over time. CONCLUSIONS: Higher facility endotoxin levels in dialysis fluid may be related to increased risk for all-cause mortality among hemodialysis patients. Correcting this modifiable facility water management practice might improve the outcome of hemodialysis patients.

Patient Care Technician Staffing in US Hemodialysis Facilities: An Ecological Study.

Rationale & Objective: Technicians caring for patients receiving dialysis play a critical, frontline role in the care of patients receiving dialysis in the United States. We sought to provide a comprehensive description and identify correlates of US in-center hemodialysis facility patient care technician staffing patterns. Study Design: This was an ecological study. Setting & Participants: US facilities providing hemodialysis and reporting patient care technician staffing, identified using the US Renal Data System. Exposures: Geography, year, and facility characteristics, including aggregated patient characteristics. Outcomes: The study outcome was facility-reported patient-to-patient care technician ratio. Analytical Approach: We examined patient-to-patient care technician ratios by US state and over time and also estimated the differences in patient-to-patient care technician ratios associated with facility characteristics, using robust regression with adjustment for facility-level covariates. Results: The median patient-to-patient care technician ratio among 6,862 US facilities in 2019 was 9.9 (25th-75th percentiles, 8.2-12.0). Median 2019 patient-to-patient care technician ratios varied substantially by US state and region. There was an overall decline (from 10.6 to 9.9) in median patient-to-patient care technician ratios from 2004 to 2019, whereas the percentage of positions that were unfilled increased (from 2.8% to 3.5%). After adjustment, large dialysis organization status (ß, -0.42; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.23) and larger facility size (ß, -0.51; 95% CI, -0.68 to -0.33) were associated with lower patient-to-patient care technician ratios. Higher patient-to-registered nurse (ß, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94) and patient-to-social worker (ß, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37-0.70) ratios, presence of licensed vocational nurses or licensed practical nurses at the clinic (ß, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.53-1.12), and location in a poverty area (ß, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.44) were all associated with higher patient-to-patient care technician ratios. Aggregated patient characteristics of patients treated at the facilities were generally not associated with patient-to-patient care technician ratio after adjustment. Limitations: Limited causal inference and potential shifts in staffing after 2019. Conclusions: US dialysis facilities vary considerably in their patient care technician staffing by geography, over time, and by various facility characteristics. Further investigation of US patient care technician staffing is warranted and could lead to better, more stable dialysis staffing, improved staff and patient satisfaction, and higher quality of care.

In the United States, patient care technicians play an important role in hemodialysis care. Although ongoing staffing shortages and turnover among other hemodialysis care providers have been described, little is known about US patient care technician staffing. Examining national data reported by dialysis facilities, we found variability in patient care technician staffing by geography, over time (with fewer patients per patient care technician in more recent years), and by various facility characteristics. This information can be used to target staff recruitment and retention interventions at facilities where patient care technician staffing may be more challenging.

High-Dimensional Fixed Effects Profiling Models and Applications in End-Stage Kidney Disease Patients: Current State and Future Directions.

Profiling analysis aims to evaluate health care providers, including hospitals, nursing homes, or dialysis facilities among others with respect to a patient outcome, such as 30-day unplanned hospital readmission or mortality. Fixed effects (FE) profiling models have been developed over the last decade, motivated by the overall need to (a) improve accurate identification or "flagging" of under-performing providers, (b) relax assumptions inherent in random effects (RE) profiling models, and (c) take into consideration the unique disease characteristics and care/treatment processes of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients on dialysis. In this paper, we review the current state of FE methodologies and their rationale in the ESKD population and illustrate applications in four key areas: profiling dialysis facilities for (1) patient hospitalizations over time (longitudinally) using standardized dynamic readmission ratio (SDRR), (2) identification of dialysis facility characteristics (e.g., staffing level) that contribute to hospital readmission, and (3) adverse recurrent events using standardized event ratio (SER). Also, we examine the operating characteristics with a focus on FE profiling models. Throughout these areas of applications to the ESKD population, we identify challenges for future research in both methodology and clinical studies.

Association of US Dialysis Facility Staffing with Profiling of Hospital-Wide 30-Day Unplanned Readmission.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned hospital readmissions are a major source of morbidity among dialysis patients, in whom the risk of hospital readmission is exceptionally high. The contribution of dialysis facility staffing to hospital readmission has been largely overlooked. METHODS: Using annual data of dialysis patients from the United States Renal Data System from 2010 to 2013, we assessed dialysis facilities with a significantly worse (SW) and facilities with a nonsignificant (NS) standardized readmission ratio (SRR). SRR estimates were risk adjusted for patient factors, past year comorbidities, and index hospitalization characteristics. Facility staffing variables were compared between 2 exposure groups: facilities with SW and NS SRRs. Four measures of staffing, including patient-to-staffing ratio, were compared between SW and matched NS facilities. RESULTS: About 136,000-148,000 dialysis patients with 269,000-319,000 index hospital discharges were used to identify facilities with SW and facilities with NS SRR annually. Approximately 3-4% of facilities were identified as having SW SRR among > 5,000 facilities annually. The percent of nurses-to-total staff was significantly lower in 2010 for SW facilities than in matched NS facilities (42.5 vs. 45.6%, p = 0.012), but this disparity was attenuated by 2013 (44.8 vs. 44.7%, p = 0.949). There was a higher patient-to-nurse ratio for SW facilities than for NS facilities (mean 16.4 vs. 15.2, p = 0.038) in 2010 as well, and the disparity was reduced by 2013. The trends were similar for patient-to-total staff and patient-to-registered nurse, but not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that dialysis facilities with SW 30-day readmission rates had lower proportions of nurses-to-total staff and higher patient-to-nurse ratios, but this disparity improved in recent years. Additional research is warranted focusing on how evidence-based staffing at dialysis facilities can contribute to reduction of hospital readmission, and this knowledge is needed to inform clinical practice guidelines and policy decisions regarding optimal dialysis patient staffing.

The Association Between Dialysis Facility Quality and Facility Characteristics, Neighborhood Demographics, and Region.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) initiated the End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program in 2012. For each dialysis facility, an overall quality performance score is determined based on various quality measures. This article studies the association between the overall dialysis facility quality and facility characteristics, neighborhood demographics, and region. Data from the CMS Payment Year 2014 Dialysis Compare File were used, and were linked to 2010 US Census data (n = 4086). Multiple linear regression was used to examine the association between dialysis facility quality and facility characteristics, neighborhood demographics, and region. The analysis demonstrates that dialysis facility quality varies significantly by facility profit status, chain membership, and facility size. Dialysis facilities in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of African Americans have significantly lower quality. Regional differences in quality exist.