Search

Objectives Persons with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) have unique support needs associated with managing a chronic yet often silent condition, complex treatment-related decisions and care transitions. The aim of this study was to explore perspectives on how peer support could address CKD support needs and augment care.Design This study employed a qualitative descriptive methodology. Data were collected through focus groups (cofacilitated by patient partners) and semistructured interviews.Setting Four multidisciplinary CKD clinics across Southern Alberta, Canada.Participants We purposively sampled among adult patients with advanced, non-dialysis CKD and their caregivers, as well as trained peer mentors from The Kidney Foundation of Canada’s Kidney Connect programme.Analysis Transcripts were coded in duplicate, and themes were generated inductively through a thematic analysis approach.Results We conducted seven focus groups with a total of 39 patient and caregiver participants. Seven patients and caregivers who were unable to attend a focus group and 13 peer mentors participated in a telephone interview. Although patients and caregivers had limited awareness of peer support, participants acknowledged its central role in affirming their experiences and enabling confidence to live well with kidney disease. We identified four themes related to the anticipated role of peer support in addressing support needs for people with non-dialysis CKD: (1) creating connection; (2) preparing for uncertainty; (3) adapting to new realities; and (4) responsive peer support delivery. Aligning peer support access with patient readiness and existing CKD management supports can promote optimism, community and pragmatic adaptations to challenges.Conclusions Patients, caregivers and peer mentors highlighted a unique value in the shared experiences of CKD peers to anticipate and manage disease-related challenges and confidently face a future living with kidney disease.

Abstract Background Peer support complements traditional models of chronic kidney disease (CKD) care through sharing of peer experiences, pragmatic advice, and resources to enhance chronic kidney disease self-management and decision-making. As peer support is variably offered and integrated into multi-disciplinary CKD care, we aimed to characterize healthcare providers’ experiences and views on peer support provision for people with non-dialysis-dependent CKD within Canada. Methods In this concurrent mixed methods study, we used a self-administered online survey to collect information from multi-disciplinary CKD clinic providers (e.g., nurses, nephrologists, allied health professionals) on peer support awareness, program characteristics and processes, perceived value, and barriers and facilitators to offering peer support in CKD clinics. Results were analyzed descriptively. We undertook semi-structured interviews with a sample of survey respondents to elaborate on perspectives about peer support in CKD care, which we analyzed using inductive, content analysis. Results We surveyed 113 providers from 49 clinics. Two thirds (66%) were aware of formal peer support programs, of whom 19% offered in-house peer support through their clinic. Peer support awareness differed by role and region, and most referrals were made by social workers. Likert scale responses suggested a high perceived need of peer support for people with CKD. Top cited barriers to offering peer support included lack of peer support access and workload demands, while facilitators included systematic clinic processes for peer support integration and alignment with external programs. Across 18 interviews, we identified themes related to peer support awareness, logistics, and accessibility and highlighted a need for integrated support pathways. Conclusions Our findings suggest variability in awareness and availability of peer support among Canadian multi-disciplinary CKD clinics. An understanding of the factors influencing peer support delivery will inform strategies to optimize its uptake for people with advanced CKD.

Purpose of review: Diabetes affects almost a 10th of the Canadian population, and diabetic nephropathy is one of its main complications. It remains a leading cause of kidney failure despite the availability of effective treatments. Sources of information: The sources of information are iterative discussions between health care professionals and patient partners and literature collected through the search of multiple databases. Methods: Major pitfalls related to optimal diabetic nephropathy care were identified through discussions between patient partners and clinician researchers. We identified underlying factors that were common between pitfalls. We then conducted a narrative review of strategies to overcome them, with a focus on Canadian initiatives. Key findings: We identified 5 pitfalls along the diabetic nephropathy trajectory, including a delay in diabetes diagnosis, suboptimal glycemic control, delay in the detection of kidney involvement, suboptimal kidney protection, and deficient management of advanced chronic kidney disease. Several innovative care models and approaches have been proposed to address these pitfalls; however, they are not consistently applied. To improve diabetic nephropathy care in Canada, we recommend focusing initiatives on improving awareness of diabetic nephropathy, improving access to timely evidence-based care, fostering inclusive patient-centered care environment, and generating new evidence that supports complex disease management. It is imperative that patients and their families are included at the center of these initiatives. Limitations: This review was limited to research published in peer-reviewed journals. We did not perform a systematic review of the literature; we included articles that were relevant to the major pitfalls identified by our patient partners. Study quality was also not formally assessed. The combination of these factors limits the scope of our conclusions.

Background: Simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantation (SPK) has benefits for patients with kidney failure and type I diabetes mellitus, but is associated with greater perioperative risk compared with kidney-alone transplantation. Postoperative care settings for SPK recipients vary across Canada and may have implications for patient outcomes and hospital resource use. Objective: To compare outcomes following SPK transplantation between patients receiving postoperative care in the intensive care unit (ICU) compared with the ward. Design: Retrospective cohort study using administrative health data. Setting: In Alberta, the 2 transplant centers (Calgary and Edmonton) have different protocols for routine postoperative care of SPK recipients. In Edmonton, SPK recipients are routinely transferred to the ICU, whereas in Calgary, SPK recipients are transferred to the ward. Patients: 129 adult SPK recipients (2002-2019). Measurements: Data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database (CIHI-DAD) were used to identify SPK recipients (procedure codes) and the outcomes of inpatient mortality, length of initial hospital stay (LOS), and the occurrence of 16 different patient safety indicators (PSIs). Methods: We followed SPK recipients from the admission date of their transplant hospitalization until the first of hospital discharge or death. Unadjusted quantile regression was used to determine differences in LOS, and age- and sex-adjusted marginal probabilities were used to determine differences in PSIs between centers. Results: There were no perioperative deaths and no major differences in the demographic characteristics between the centers. The majority of the SPK transplants were performed in Edmonton (n = 82, 64%). All SPK recipients in Edmonton were admitted to the ICU postoperatively, compared with only 11% in Calgary. There was no statistically significant difference in the LOS or probability of a PSI between the 2 centers (LOS for Edmonton vs Calgary:16 vs 13 days, P = .12; PSIs for Edmonton vs Calgary: 60%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.50-0.71 vs 44%, 95% CI = 0.29-0.59, P = .08). Limitations: This study was conducted using administrative data and is limited by variable availability. The small sample size limited precision of estimated differences between type of postoperative care. Conclusions: Following SPK transplantation, we found no difference in inpatient outcomes for recipients who received routine postoperative ICU care compared with ward care. Further research using larger data sets and interventional study designs is needed to better understand the implications of postoperative care settings on patient outcomes and health care resource utilization.

Background: Home hemodialysis (HHD) offers a flexible, patient-centered modality for patients with kidney failure. Growth in HHD is achieved by increasing the number of patients starting HHD and reducing attrition with strategies to prevent the modifiable reasons for loss. Objective: Our primary objective was to describe a Canadian HHD population in terms of technique failure and time to exit from HHD in order to understand reasons for exit. Our secondary objectives include the following: (1) determining reasons for training failure, (2) reasons for early exit from HHD, and (3) timing of program exit. Design: A retrospective cohort study of incident adult HHD patients between January 1, 2013—June 30, 2020. Setting: Alberta Kidney Care South, AKC-S HHD program. Participants: Patients who started training for HHD in AKC-S. Methods: A retrospective, cohort study of incident adult HHD patients with primary outcome time on home hemodialysis, secondary outcomes include reason for train failure, time to and reasons for technique failure. Cox-proportional hazard model to determine associations between patient characteristics and technique failure. The cumulative probability of technique failure over time was reported using a competing risks model. Results: A total of 167 patients entered HHD. Training failure occurred in 20 (12%), at 3.1 [2.0, 5.5] weeks; these patients were older ( P < .001) and had 2 or more comorbidities ( P < .001). Reasons for HHD exit after training included transplant (35; 21%), death (8; 4.8%), and technique failure (24; 14.4%). Overall, the median time to HHD exit, was 23 months [11, 41] and the median time of technique failure was 17 months [8.9, 36]. Reasons for technique failure included: psychosocial reasons (37%) at a median time 8.9 months [7.7, 13], safety (12.5%) at 19 months [19, 36], and medical (37.5%) at 26 months [11, 50]. Limitations: Small patient population with quality of data limited by the electronic-based medical record and non-standardized definitions of reasons for exit. Conclusions: Training failure is a particularly important source of patient loss. Reasons for exit differ according to duration on HHD. Early interventions aimed at reducing train failure and increasing psychosocial supports may help program growth.

Background: Most of the patients with end-stage kidney failure are treated with dialysis. Jurisdictions around the world are actively promoting peritoneal dialysis (PD) because it is equivalent to hemodialysis in terms of clinical outcomes, but is less costly. Unfortunately, PD penetration remains low. Objectives: The Starting dialysis on Time, At Home, on the Right Therapy (START) Project had 2 overarching goals: (1) to provide information that would help programs increase the safe and effective use of PD, and (2) to reduce inappropriate, early initiation of dialysis in patients with kidney failure. In this article, we focus on the first objective and describe the rationale for START and the methods employed. Design: The START Project was a comprehensive, province-wide quality improvement intervention. Setting: The START project was implemented in both Alberta Kidney Care (AKC)-South and AKC-North, including all 7 renal programs in the province. Patients: The project included all patients who commenced maintenance dialysis between October 1, 2015, and March 31, 2018, in Alberta, Canada who met our inclusion criteria. Measurements: We reported baseline characteristics of incident dialysis patients overall, and by site. Our key performance indicator was the proportion of patients who received PD for any period of time within 180 days of the first dialysis treatment. Reports also included detailed metrics pertaining to the 6 steps in the process of modality selection and we had the capacity to provide more granular data on an as-needed basis. To understand loss of PD patients, we reported the numbers of incident patients who recovered kidney function, experienced technique failure, received a transplant, were lost to follow-up, transferred to another program, or died. Methods: START provided dialysis programs with a conceptual framework for understanding the drivers of PD utilization. High-quality, detailed data were collected using a tool that was custom-built for this purpose, and were mapped to steps in the process of care that drove the outcomes of interest. This allowed sites to identify gaps in care, develop action plans, and implement local interventions to address them. The process was supported by an Innovation Learning Collaborative consisting of 3 learning sessions that brought frontline staff together from across the province to share strategies and learnings. Ongoing data collection allowed teams to determine whether their interventions were effective at each subsequent learning session, and to revisit their interventions if required (the “Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycle”). Results: Future work will report on the impact of the START project on incident PD utilization at a provincial and regional level. Limitations: The time required to design and implement interventions in practice, as well as the need for multiple PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act) cycles to see results, meant that the true potential may not be realized during a relatively short intervention period. Change required buy-in and support from local and provincial leadership and frontline staff. In the absence of accountability for local performance, we relied on the goodwill of participating programs to use the information and resources provided to effect change. Finally, the burden of documentation and data collection for frontline staff was high at baseline. We anticipated that adding supplemental data collection would be difficult. Conclusions: The START project was a comprehensive, province-wide initiative to maximize the safe and effective use of PD in Alberta, Canada. It standardized the management of incident dialysis patients, leveraged high-quality data to facilitate the reporting of metrics mapped to steps in the process of care that drove incident PD utilization, and helped programs to identify gaps in care and target them for improvement. Future work will report on the impact of the program on incident utilization at the provincial and regional level.

Background: People with end-stage kidney disease can either pursue conservative (palliative) management or kidney replacement therapy. Although transplant is preferred, there is a limited number of organs available rendering the majority of patients treated with some form of dialysis. Hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis are equivalent regarding clinical outcomes, but peritoneal dialysis is much less costly to provide. Peritoneal dialysis is most often done in the home by the patient or a support person and carries a self-care burden on patients and families. Social support is important for patients receiving peritoneal dialysis and in sustaining peritoneal dialysis therapy. Few studies have comprehensively explored social support in the context of peritoneal dialysis. Objective: To explore how patients, family members, and nurses view social support. Design: Qualitative, descriptive study. Setting: An outpatient peritoneal dialysis clinic in Western Canada. Participants: Patients, family members, and nurses. Methods: Patients (n = 15), family members (n = 6), and nurses (n = 11) were interviewed between January and May 2018. Content analysis was undertaken using 4 attributes of social support (ie, emotional support, instrumental support, informational support, and appraisal support) as an analytic framework. Results: Themes related to the 4 attributes of social support were identified: addressing emotional needs and managing emotion (emotional support); peritoneal dialysis tasks and life tasks (instrumental support); accessing information, receiving information, and learning (informational support); and affirmation/external reassurance and self-confidence (appraisal support). The social support needs of both patients and family members varied and were dependent on their existing support networks and individual perspectives of support. Limitations: It is possible that some of the study findings were gender-bound as well as context-specific. The study findings could be different if the patient and caregiver sample were more balanced based on sex. There are also unique attributes of each peritoneal dialysis program that may impact the transferability of these findings to other practice settings. Conclusion: Home-based peritoneal dialysis has potential benefit to patients and health care systems. However, receiving peritoneal dialysis requires support. If health care providers wish to promote this treatment, they must also understand how to best support patients and their family members. Trial Registration: Not applicable.

Abstract Background Modality transitions represent a period of significant change that can impact health related quality of life (HRQoL). We explored the HRQoL of adults transitioning to new or different dialysis modalities. Methods We recruited eligible adults (≥ 18) transitioning to dialysis from pre-dialysis or undertaking a dialysis modality change between July and September 2017. Nineteen participants (9 incident and 10 prevalent dialysis patients) completed the KDQOL-36 survey at time of transition and three months later. Fifteen participants undertook a semi-structured interview at three months. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed. Results Four themes and five sub-themes were identified: adapting to new circumstances (tackling change, accepting change), adjusting together, trading off, and challenges of chronicity (the impact of dialysis, living with a complex disease, planning with uncertainty). From the first day of dialysis treatment to the third month on a new dialysis therapy, all five HRQoL domains from the KDQOL-36 (symptoms, effects, burden, overall PCS, and overall MCS) improved in our sample (i.e., those who remained on the modality). Conclusions Dialysis transitions negatively impact the HRQoL of people with kidney disease in various ways. Future work should focus on how to best support people during this time.