Search

Background: Dialysis might not benefit all older patients with kidney failure, particularly those with multimorbid conditions and frailty. Patients' and healthcare professionals' awareness of the presence of geriatric impairments could improve outcomes by tailoring treatment plans and decisions for individual patients. Objective: We aimed to explore the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals on nephrology‐tailored geriatric assessment to fuel decision‐making for treatment choices in older patients with kidney failure. Design: In an exploratory qualitative study using focus groups, participants discussed perspectives on the use and value of nephrology‐tailored geriatric assessment for the decision‐making process to start or forego dialysis. Participants and Measurements: Patients (n = 18) with kidney failure, caregivers (n = 4), and professionals (n = 25) were purposively sampled from 10 hospitals. Interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim and inductively analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Three main themes emerged that supported or impeded decision‐making in kidney failure: (1) patient psycho‐social situation; (2) patient‐related factors on modality choice; (3) organisation of health care. Patients reported feeling vulnerable due to multiple chronic conditions, old age, experienced losses in life and their willingness to trade longevity for quality of life. Professionals recognised the added value of nephrology‐tailored geriatric assessment in three major themes: (i) facilitating continual holistic assessment, (ii) filling the knowledge gap, and (iii) uncovering important patient characteristics. Conclusions: nephrology‐tailored geriatric assessment was perceived as a valuable tool to identify geriatric impairments in older patients with kidney failure. Integration of its outcomes can facilitate a more holistic approach to inform choices and decisions about kidney replacement therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used in nephrology care. However, in contrast to well‐known clinical measures such as blood pressure, health‐care professionals are less familiar with PROMs and the interpretation of PROM scores is therefore perceived as challenging. In this paper, we provide insight into the interpretation of PROM scores by introducing the different types and characteristics of PROMs, and the most relevant concepts for the interpretation of PROM scores. Concepts such as minimal detectable change, minimal important change and response shift are explained and illustrated with examples from nephrology care. SUMMARY AT A GLANCE: The review provides insight into the interpretation of PROM scores by introducing the different types and characteristics of PROMs, and the most relevant concepts for the interpretation of PROM scores, ie minimal detectable change, minimal important change and response shift. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A funnel plot is a graphical method to evaluate health‐care quality by comparing hospital performances on certain outcomes. So far, in nephrology, this method has been applied to clinical outcomes like mortality and complications. However, patient‐reported outcomes (PROs; eg, health‐related quality of life [HRQOL]) are becoming increasingly important and should be incorporated into this quality assessment. Using funnel plots has several advantages, including clearly visualized precision, detection of volume‐effects, discouragement of ranking hospitals and easy interpretation of results. However, without sufficient knowledge of underlying methods, it is easy to stumble into pitfalls, such as overinterpretation of standardized scores, incorrect direct comparisons of hospitals and assuming a hospital to be in‐control (ie, to perform as expected) based on underpowered comparisons. Furthermore, application of funnel plots to PROs is accompanied by additional challenges related to the multidimensional nature of PROs and difficulties with measuring PROs. Before using funnel plots for PROs, high and consistent response rates, adequate case mix correction and high‐quality PRO measures are required. In this article, we aim to provide insight into the use and interpretation of funnel plots by presenting an overview of the basic principles, pitfalls and considerations when applied to PROs, using examples from Dutch routine dialysis care. SUMMARY AT A GLANCE: The statistical review provides insights into the use and interpretation of funnel plots by presenting an overview of the basic principles, pitfalls and considerations when applied to patient‐reported outcomes using examples from Dutch routine dialysis care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In evidence‐based medicine, clinical research questions may be addressed by different study designs. This article describes when randomized controlled trials (RCT) are needed and when observational studies are more suitable. According to the Centre for Evidence‐Based Medicine, study designs can be divided into analytic and non‐analytic (descriptive) study designs. Analytic studies aim to quantify the association of an intervention (eg, treatment) or a naturally occurring exposure with an outcome. They can be subdivided into experimental (ie, RCT) and observational studies. The RCT is the best study design to evaluate the intended effect of an intervention, because the randomization procedure breaks the link between the allocation of the intervention and patient prognosis. If the randomization of the intervention or exposure is not possible, one needs to depend on observational analytic studies, but these studies usually suffer from bias and confounding. If the study focuses on unintended effects of interventions (ie, effects of an intervention that are not intended or foreseen), observational analytic studies are the most suitable study designs, provided that there is no link between the allocation of the intervention and the unintended effect. Furthermore, non‐analytic studies (ie, descriptive studies) also rely on observational study designs. In summary, RCTs and observational study designs are inherently different, and depending on the study aim, they each have their own strengths and weaknesses. SUMMARY AT A GLANCE: In evidence‐based medicine, clinical research questions may be addressed by different study designs. In this article, we explain that randomized controlled trials and observational study designs are inherently different, and depending on the study aim, they each have their own strengths and weaknesses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]