Search

IntroductionAbout one-third of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) develop persistently decreased kidney function, known as acute kidney disease (AKD), which may progress to chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although sepsis is the most common cause of AKI, little is known about sepsis-associated AKD.MethodsUsing data from a large randomized trial including 1341 patients with septic shock, we studied patients with stage 2 or 3 AKI on day 1 of hospitalization. We defined AKD as a persistently reduced glomerular filtration rate for >7 days. In addition to clinical data, we measured several urinary biomarkers (tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2 and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 [TIMP-2∗IGFBP7], neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin [NGAL], kidney injury molecule-1 [KIM-1], liver-type fatty acid binding protein, and type 4 collagen) at 0, 6, and 24 hours, to predict AKD.ResultsOf 598 patients, 119 (19.9%) died within 7 days, 318 (53.2%) had early reversal of AKI within the first 7 days, whereas 161 (26.9%) developed AKD. In patients with early reversal, 45 (14.2%) had relapsed AKI after early reversal, and only about one-third of these recovered. Among patients developing AKD, only 15 (9.3%) recovered renal function prior to discharge. Male sex, African American race, and underlying CKD were more predominant in patients developing AKD. None of the biomarkers tested performed well for prediction of AKD, although NGAL modestly increased the performance of a clinical model.ConclusionsAKD is common in patients with septic shock, especially among African American males and those with underlying CKD. Existing AKI biomarkers have limited utility for predicting AKD but might be useful together with clinical variables. Novel predictive biomarkers for renal recovery are needed.

ContextMedicaid populations have low rates of advance care planning (ACP). Potential policy interventions include financial incentives.ObjectiveTo test the effectiveness of patient plus provider financial incentive compared with provider financial incentive alone for increasing ACP discussions among Medicaid patients.MethodsBetween April 2014 and July 2015, we conducted two sequential assessor-blinded pragmatic randomized trials in a health plan that pays primary care providers (PCPs) $100 to discuss ACP: 1) a parallel cluster trial (provider-delivered patient incentive) and 2) an individual-level trial (mail-delivered patient incentive). Control and intervention arms included encouragement to complete ACP, instructions for using an online ACP tool, and (in the intervention arm) $50 for completing the online ACP tool and a small probability of $1000 (i.e., lottery) for discussing ACP with their PCP. The primary outcome was provider-reported ACP discussion within three months.ResultsIn the provider-delivered patient incentive study, 38 PCPs were randomized to the intervention (n = 18) or control (n = 20) and given 10 patient packets each to distribute. Using an intention-to-treat analysis, there were 27 of 180 ACP discussions (15%) in the intervention group and 5 of 200 (2.5%) in the control group (P = .0391). In the mail-delivered patient incentive study, there were 5 of 187 ACP discussions (2.7%) in the intervention group and 5 of 189 (2.6%) in the control group (P = .99).ConclusionACP rates were low despite an existing provider financial incentive. Adding a provider-delivered patient financial incentive, but not a mail-delivered patient incentive, modestly increased ACP discussions. PCP encouragement combined with a patient incentive may be more powerful than either encouragement or incentive alone.

Background: There are missed opportunities to discuss goals and preferences for care with seriously ill patients in the acute care setting. It is unknown which factors most influence clinician decision-making about communication at the point of care. Objective: This study utilized a cognitive-interviewing technique to better understand what leads clinicians to decide to have a goals of care (GOC) discussion in the acute care setting. Methods: A convenience sample of 15 oncologists, intensivists and hospitalists were recruited from a single academic medical center in a large urban area. Participants completed a cognitive interview describing their thought process when deciding whether to engage in GOC discussions in clinical vignettes. Results: 6 interconnected factors emerged as important in determining how likely the physician was to consider engaging in GOC at that time; (1) the participants' mental model of GOC, (2) timing of GOC related to stability, acuity and reversibility of the patient's condition, (3) clinical factors such as uncertainty, prognosis and recency of diagnosis, (4) patient factors including age and emotional state, (5) participants' role on the care team, and (6) clinician factors such as emotion and communication skill level. Conclusion: Participants were hesitant to commit to the present moment as the right time for GOC discussions based on variations in clinical presentation. Clinical decision support systems that include more targeted information about risk of clinical deterioration and likelihood of reversal of the acute condition may prompt physicians to discuss GOC, but more support for managing discomfort with uncertainty is also needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We describe racially discordant oncology encounters involving EOL decision-making. Fifty-eight provider interviews were content analyzed using the tenets of problematic integration theory. We found EOL discussions between non-Black providers and their Black patients were often complex and anxiety-inducing. That anxiety consisted of (1) ontological uncertainty in which providers characterized the nature of Black patients as distrustful, especially in the context of clinical trials; (2) ontological and epistemological uncertainty in which provider intercultural incompetency and perceived lack of patient health literacy were normalized and intertwined with provider assumptions about patients' religion and support systems; (3) epistemological uncertainty as ambivalence in which providers' feelings conflicted when deciding whether to speak with family members they perceived as lacking health literacy; (4) divergence in which the provider advised palliative care while the family desired surgery or cancer-directed medical treatment; and (5) impossibility when an ontological uncertainty stance of Black distrust was seen as natural by providers and therefore impossible to change. Some communication strategies used were indirect stereotyping, negotiating, asking a series of value questions, blame-guilt framing, and avoidance. We concluded that provider perceptions of Black distrust, religion, and social support influenced their ability to communicate effectively with patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]