Search

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: People receiving maintenance dialysis must often rely on family members and other close persons to make critical treatment decisions toward the end of life. Contemporary data on family members’ understanding of the end-of-life wishes of members of this population are lacking. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Among 172 family members of people undergoing maintenance dialysis, we ascertained their level of involvement in the patient’s care and prior discussions about care preferences. We also compared patient and family member responses to questions about end-of-life care using percentage agreement and the κ-statistic. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the 172 enrolled family members was 55 (±17) years, 136 (79%) were women, and 43 (25%) were Black individuals. Sixty-seven (39%) family members were spouses or partners of enrolled patients. A total of 137 (80%) family members had spoken with the patient about whom they would want to make medical decisions, 108 (63%) had spoken with the patient about their treatment preferences, 47 (27%) had spoken with the patient about stopping dialysis, and 56 (33%) had spoken with the patient about hospice. Agreement between patient and family member responses was highest for the question about whether the patient would want cardiopulmonary resuscitation (percentage agreement 83%, κ=0.31), and was substantially lower for questions about a range of other aspects of end-of-life care, including preference for mechanical ventilation (62%, 0.21), values around life prolongation versus comfort (45%, 0.13), preferred place of death (58%, 0.07), preferred decisional role (54%, 0.15), and prognostic expectations (38%, 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Most surveyed family members reported they had spoken with the patient about their end-of-life preferences but not about stopping dialysis or hospice. Although family members had a fair understanding of patients’ cardiopulmonary resuscitation preferences, most lacked a detailed understanding of their perspectives on other aspects of end-of-life care.

There is increasing recognition of the long-term health effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection (sometimes called long COVID). However, little is yet known about the clinical diagnosis and management of long COVID within health systems.To describe dominant themes pertaining to the clinical diagnosis and management of long COVID in the electronic health records (EHRs) of patients with a diagnostic code for this condition (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] code U09.9).This qualitative analysis used data from EHRs of a national random sample of 200 patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with documentation of a positive result on a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between February 27, 2020, and December 31, 2021, and an ICD-10 diagnostic code for long COVID between October 1, 2021, when the code was implemented, and March 1, 2022. Data were analyzed from February 5 to May 31, 2022.A text word search and qualitative analysis of patients' VA-wide EHRs was performed to identify dominant themes pertaining to the clinical diagnosis and management of long COVID.In this qualitative analysis of documentation in the VA-wide EHR, the mean (SD) age of the 200 sampled patients at the time of their first positive PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2 in VA records was 60 (14.5) years. The sample included 173 (86.5%) men; 45 individuals (22.5%) were identified as Black and 136 individuals (68.0%) were identified as White. In qualitative analysis of documentation pertaining to long COVID in patients' EHRs 2 dominant themes were identified: (1) clinical uncertainty, in that it was often unclear whether particular symptoms could be attributed to long COVID, given the medical complexity and functional limitations of many patients and absence of specific markers for this condition, which could lead to ongoing monitoring, diagnostic testing, and specialist referral; and (2) care fragmentation, describing how post-COVID-19 care processes were often siloed from and poorly coordinated with other aspects of care and could be burdensome to patients.This qualitative study of documentation in the VA EHR highlights the complexity of diagnosing long COVID in clinical settings and the challenges of caring for patients who have or are suspected of having this condition.

ImportancePatients receiving maintenance dialysis experience intensive patterns of end-of-life care that might not be consistent with their values.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of patients’ health care values with engagement in advance care planning and end-of-life care.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsSurvey study of patients who received maintenance dialysis between 2015 and 2018 at dialysis centers in the greater metropolitan areas of Seattle, Washington, and Nashville, Tennessee, with longitudinal follow-up of decedents. Logistic regression models were used to estimate probabilities. Data analysis was conducted between May and October 2022.ExposuresA survey question about the value that the participant would place on longevity-focused vs comfort-focused care if they were to become seriously ill.Main Outcomes and MeasuresSelf-reported engagement in advance care planning and care received near the end of life through 2020 using linked kidney registry data and Medicare claims.ResultsOf 933 patients (mean [SD] age, 62.6 [14.0] years; 525 male patients [56.3%]; 254 [27.2%] identified as Black) who responded to the question about values and could be linked to registry data (65.2% response rate [933 of 1431 eligible patients]), 452 (48.4%) indicated that they would value comfort-focused care, 179 (19.2%) that they would value longevity-focused care, and 302 (32.4%) that they were unsure about the intensity of care they would value. Many had not completed an advance directive (estimated probability, 47.5% [95% CI, 42.9%-52.1%] of those who would value comfort-focused care vs 28.1% [95% CI, 24.0%-32.3%] of those who would value longevity-focused care or were unsure; P P P P P P = .64), discontinued dialysis (estimated probability, 38.3% [95% CI, 32.0%-44.8%] comfort focused vs 30.2% [95% CI, 23.0%-37.8%] longevity focused or unsure; P = .09), and enrolled in hospice (estimated probability, 32.2% [95% CI, 25.7%-38.7%] comfort focused vs 23.3% [95% CI, 16.4%-30.5%] longevity focused or unsure; P = .07) were not statistically different.Conclusions and RelevanceThis survey study found that there appeared to be a disconnect between patients’ expressed values, which were largely comfort focused, and their engagement in advance care planning and end-of-life care, which reflected a focus on longevity. These findings suggest important opportunities to improve the quality of care for patients receiving dialysis.

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted health care institutions worldwide to develop plans for allocation of scarce resources in crisis capacity settings. These plans frequently rely on rapid deployment of institutional triage teams that would be responsible for prioritizing patients to receive scarce resources; however, little is known about how these teams function or how to support team members participating in this unique task.To identify themes illuminating triage team members' perspectives and experiences pertaining to the triage process.This qualitative study was conducted using inductive thematic analysis of observations of Washington state triage team simulations and semistructured interviews with participants during the COVID-19 pandemic from December 2020 to February 2021. Participants included clinician and ethicist triage team members. Data were analyzed from December 2020 through November 2021.Emergent themes describing the triage process and experience of triage team members.Among 41 triage team members (mean [SD] age, 50.3 [11.4] years; 21 [51.2%] women) who participated in 12 simulations and 21 follow-up interviews, there were 5 Asian individuals (12.2%) and 35 White individuals (85.4%); most participants worked in urban hospital settings (32 individuals [78.0%]). Three interrelated themes emerged from qualitative analysis: (1) understanding the broader approach to resource allocation: participants strove to understand operational and ethical foundations of the triage process, which was necessary to appreciate their team's specific role; (2) contending with uncertainty: team members could find it difficult or feel irresponsible making consequential decisions based on limited clinical and contextual patient information, and they grappled with ethically ambiguous features of individual cases and of the triage process as a whole; and (3) transforming mindset: participants struggled to disentangle narrow determinations about patients' likelihood of survival to discharge from implicit biases and other ethically relevant factors, such as quality of life. They cited the team's open deliberative process, as well as practice and personal experience with triage as important in helping to reshape their usual cognitive approach to align with this unique task.This study found that there were challenges in adapting clinical intuition and training to a distinctive role in the process of scarce resource allocation. These findings suggest that clinical experience, education in ethical and operational foundations of triage, and experiential training, such as triage simulations, may help prepare clinicians for this difficult role.

Objective: Plans for allocation of scarce life-sustaining resources during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic often include triage teams, but operational details are lacking, including what patient information is needed to make triage decisions. Methods: A Delphi study among Washington state disaster preparedness experts was performed to develop a list of patient information items needed for triage team decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Experts proposed and rated their agreement with candidate information items during asynchronous Delphi rounds. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement. Qualitative analysis was used to describe considerations arising in this deliberation. A timed simulation was performed to evaluate feasibility of data collection from the electronic health record. Results: Over 3 asynchronous Delphi rounds, 50 experts reached consensus on 24 patient information items, including patients’ age, severe or end-stage comorbidities, the reason for and timing of admission, measures of acute respiratory failure, and clinical trajectory. Experts weighed complex considerations around how information items could support effective prognostication, consistency, accuracy, minimizing bias, and operationalizability of the triage process. Data collection took a median of 227 seconds (interquartile range = 205, 298) per patient. Conclusions: Experts achieved consensus on patient information items that were necessary and appropriate for informing triage teams during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The reality of resource limitation during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has deeply challenged established approaches to healthcare system emergency response. Early preparation du...

An understanding of the ethical underpinnings of human subjects research that involves some risk to participants without anticipated direct clinical benefit-such as the kidney biopsy procedure as part of the Kidney Precision Medicine Project (KPMP)-requires a critical examination of the risks as well as the diverse set of countervailing potential benefits to participants. This kind of deliberation has been foundational to the development and conduct of the KPMP. Herein, we use illustrative features of this research paradigm to develop a more comprehensive conceptualization of the types of benefits that may be important to research participants, including respecting pluralistic values, supporting the opportunity to act altruistically, and enhancing benefits to a participant's community. This approach may serve as a model to help researchers, ethicists, and regulators to identify opportunities to better respect and support participants in future research that entails some risk to these participants as well as to improve the quality of research for people with kidney disease.

Understanding ethical concerns that arise in the care of patients with advanced kidney disease may help identify opportunities to support medical decision-making. To describe the clinical contexts and types of ethical concerns that arise in the care of patients with advanced kidney disease. Retrospective cohort study. A total of 28,568 Veterans with advanced kidney disease between 2000 and 2009 followed through death or 2011. Clinical scenarios that prompted clinicians to consider an ethics consultation as documented in the medical record. Dialysis initiation, dialysis discontinuation, receipt of an intensive procedure during the final month of life, and hospice enrollment. Patients had a mean age of 67.1 years, and the majority were male (98.5%) and white (59.0%). Clinicians considered an ethics consultation for 794 patients (2.5%) over a median follow-up period of 2.7 years. Ethical concerns involved code status (37.8%), dialysis (54.5%), other invasive treatments (40.6%), and noninvasive treatments (61.1%) and were related to conflicts between patients, their surrogates, and/or clinicians about treatment preferences (79.3%), who had authority to make healthcare decisions (65.9%), and meeting the care needs of patients versus obligations to others (10.6%). Among the 20,583 patients who died during follow-up, those for whom clinicians had considered an ethics consultation were less likely to have been treated with dialysis (47.6% versus 62.0%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.63, 95% CI 0.53–0.74), more likely to have discontinued dialysis (32.5% versus 20.9%, aOR 2.07, CI 1.61–2.66), and less likely to have received an intensive procedure in the last month of life (8.9% versus 18.9%, aOR 0.41, CI 0.32–0.54) compared with patients without documentation of clinicians having considered consultation. Clinicians considered an ethics consultation for patients with advanced kidney disease in situations of conflicting preferences regarding dialysis and other intensive treatments, especially when these treatments were not pursued.

In this essay, we describe the evolution of attitudes toward dialysis discontinuation in historical context, beginning with the birth of outpatient dialysis in the 1960s and continuing through the present. From the start, attitudes toward dialysis discontinuation have reflected the clinical context in which dialysis is initiated. In the 1960s and 1970s, dialysis was only available to select patients and concerns about distributive justice weighed heavily. Because there was strong enthusiasm for new technology and dialysis was regarded as a precious resource not to be wasted, stopping treatment had negative moral connotations and was generally viewed as something to be discouraged. More recently, dialysis has become the default treatment for advanced kidney disease in the United States, leading to concerns about overtreatment and whether patients’ values, goals, and preferences are sufficiently integrated into treatment decisions. Despite the developments in palliative nephrology over the past 20 years, dialysis discontinuation remains a conundrum for patients, families, and professionals. While contemporary clinical practice guidelines support a person-centered approach toward stopping dialysis treatments, this often occurs in a crisis when all treatment options have been exhausted. Relatively little is known about the impact of dialysis discontinuation on the experiences of patients and families and there is a paucity of high-quality person-centered evidence to guide practice in this area. Clinicians need better insights into decision-making, symptom burden, and other palliative outcomes that patients might expect when they discontinue dialysis treatments to better support decision-making in this area.

Background Lower extremity amputation is common among patients with ESRD, and often portends a poor prognosis. However, little is known about end-of-life care among patients with ESRD who undergo amputation. Methods We conducted a mortality follow-back study of Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD who died in 2002 through 2014 to analyze patterns of lower extremity amputation in the last year of life compared with a parallel cohort of beneficiaries without ESRD. We also examined the relationship between amputation and end-of-life care among the patients with ESRD. Results Overall, 8% of 754,777 beneficiaries with ESRD underwent at least one lower extremity amputation in their last year of life compared with 1% of 958,412 beneficiaries without ESRD. Adjusted analyses of patients with ESRD showed that those who had undergone lower extremity amputation were substantially more likely than those who had not to have been admitted to—and to have had prolonged stays in—acute and subacute care settings during their final year of life. Amputation was also associated with a greater likelihood of dying in the hospital, dialysis discontinuation before death, and less time receiving hospice services. Conclusions Nearly one in ten patients with ESRD undergoes lower extremity amputation in their last year of life. These patients have prolonged stays in acute and subacute health care settings and appear to have limited access to hospice services. These findings likely signal unmet palliative care needs among seriously ill patients with ESRD who undergo amputation as well as opportunities to improve their care.

Severe staffing shortages have emerged as a prominent threat to maintaining usual standards of care during the COVID-2019 pandemic. In dire settings of crisis capacity, healthcare systems assume the ethical duty to maximise aggregate population-level benefit of existing resources. To this end, existing plans for rationing mechanical ventilators and intensive care unit beds in crisis capacity focus on selecting individual patients who are most likely to survive and prioritising these patients to receive scarce resources. However, staffing capacity is conceptually different from availability of these types of discrete resources, and the existing strategy of identifying and prioritising patients with the best prognosis cannot be readily adapted to fit this real-world scenario. We propose that two alternative approaches to staffing resource allocation offer a better conceptual fit: (1) prioritise the worst off: restrict access to acute care services and hospital admission for patients at relatively low clinical risk and (2) prioritise staff interventions with high near-term value: universally restrict selected interventions and treatments that require substantial staff time and/or energy but offer minimal near-term patient benefit. These strategies—while potentially resulting in care that deviates from usual standards–support the goal of maximising the aggregate benefit of scarce resources in crisis capacity settings triggered by staffing shortages. This ethical framework offers a foundation to support institutional leaders in developing operationalisable crisis capacity policies that promote fairness and support healthcare workers.

Since 2014, when Congress passed the Veterans Access Choice and Accountability (Choice) Act (replaced in 2018 with the more comprehensive Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks [MISSION] Act), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been paying for US veterans to receive increasing amounts of care in the private sector (non-VA care or VA community care). However, little is known about the implications of these legislative changes for the VA system.To describe the implications for the VA system of recent increases in VA-financed non-VA care.This qualitative study was a thematic analysis of documentation in the electronic health records (EHRs) of a random sample of US veterans with advanced kidney disease between June 6, 2019, and February 5, 2021.Mentions of community care in participant EHRs.Dominant themes pertaining to VA-financed non-VA care.Among 1000 study participants, the mean (SD) age was 73.8 (11.4) years, and 957 participants (95.7%) were male. Three interrelated themes pertaining to VA-financed non-VA care emerged from qualitative analysis of documentation in cohort member EHRs: (1) VA as mothership, which describes extensive care coordination by VA staff members and clinicians to facilitate care outside the VA and the tendency of veterans and their non-VA clinicians to rely on the VA to fill gaps in this care; (2) hidden work of veterans, which describes the efforts of veterans and their family members to navigate the referral process, and to serve as intermediaries between VA and non-VA clinicians; and (3) strain on the VA system, which describes a challenging referral process and the ways in which cross-system care has stretched the traditional roles of VA staff and clinicians and interfered with VA care processes.The findings of this qualitative study describing VA-financed non-VA care for veterans with advanced kidney disease spotlight the substantial challenges of cross-system use and the strain placed on the VA system, VA staff and clinicians, and veterans and their families in recent years. These difficult-to-measure consequences of cross-system care should be considered when budgeting, evaluating, and planning the provision of VA-financed non-VA care in the private sector.

Intradialytic exercise (IDE) may improve physical function and health-related quality of life. However, incorporating IDE into standard hemodialysis care has been slow due to feasibility challenges. We conducted a multicenter qualitative feasibility study to identify potential barriers and enablers to IDE and generate potential solutions to these factors.We conducted 43 semistructured interviews with healthcare providers and patients across 12 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We used the Theoretical Domains Framework and directed content analysis to analyze the data.We identified eight relevant domains (knowledge, skills, beliefs about consequences, beliefs about capabilities, environmental context and resources, goals, social/professional role and identity, and social influences) represented by three overarching categories: knowledge, skills and expectations: lack of staff expertise to oversee exercise, uncertainty regarding exercise risks, benefits and patient interest, lack of knowledge regarding exercise eligibility; human, material and logistical resources: staff concerns regarding workload, perception that exercise professionals should supervise IDE, space, equipment and scheduling conflict concerns; and social dynamics of the unit: local champions and patient stories contribute to IDE sustainability. We developed a list of actionable solutions by mapping barriers and enablers to behavior change techniques. We also developed a feasibility checklist of 47 questions identifying key factors to address prior to IDE launch.Evidence-based solutions to identified barriers to and enablers of IDE and a feasibility checklist may help recruit and support units, staff and patients and address key challenges to the delivery of IDE in diverse clinical and research settings.

Key Points Question What types of clinical care are involved in the kidney transplant evaluation process in real-world clinical settings? Findings In this qualitative study of the electronic health records of 211 US veterans with advanced kidney disease who were referred for kidney transplant evaluation, 4 dominant themes were identified describing clinical care during the evaluation process: far-reaching and inflexible medical evaluation, psychosocial valuation, surveillance over compliance, and disempowerment and lack of transparency. Meaning In this study, clinician documentation in the medical record indicated that, to be considered for a kidney transplant, patients were required to participate in a rigid, demanding, and opaque evaluation process over which they and their local clinicians had little control., Importance To be considered for a kidney transplant, patients with advanced kidney disease must participate in a formal evaluation and selection process. Little is known about how this process proceeds in real-world clinical settings. Objective To characterize the transplant evaluation process among a representative national sample of US veterans with advanced kidney disease who were referred to a kidney transplant center. Design, Setting, and Participants This qualitative study was a thematic analysis of clinician notes in the electronic health records of US veterans referred for kidney transplant evaluation. In a random sample of 4000 patients with advanced kidney disease between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2014, cared for in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, there were 211 patients who were referred to a transplant center during the follow-up period. This group was included in the qualitative analysis and was followed up until their date of death or the end of the follow-up period on October 8, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures Dominant themes pertaining to the kidney transplant evaluation and selection process identified through thematic analysis. Results Among 211 study patients, the mean (SD) age was 57.9 (9.5) years, and 202 patients (95.7%) were male. The following 4 dominant themes regarding the transplant evaluation process emerged: (1) far-reaching and inflexible medical evaluation, in which patients were expected to complete an extensive evaluation that could have substantial physical and emotional consequences, made little accommodation for their personal values and needs, and impacted other aspects of their care; (2) psychosocial valuation, in which the psychosocial component of the transplant assessment could be subjective and intrusive and could place substantial demands on patients’ family members; (3) surveillance over compliance, in which the patients’ ability and willingness to follow medical recommendations was an important criterion for transplant candidacy and their adherence to a wide range of recommendations and treatments was closely monitored; and (4) disempowerment and lack of transparency, in which patients and their local clinicians were often unsure about what to expect during the evaluation process or about the rationale for selection decisions. For the evaluation process to proceed, local clinicians had to follow transplant center requirements even when they believed the requirements did not align with best practices or the patients’ needs. Conclusions and Relevance In this qualitative study of US veterans with advanced kidney disease evaluated for transplant, clinician documentation in the medical record indicated that, to be considered for a kidney transplant, patients were required to participate in a rigid, demanding, and opaque evaluation and selection process over which they and their local clinicians had little control. These findings highlight the need for a more evidence-based, individualized, and collaborative approach to kidney transplant evaluation., This qualitative study describes the real-world experience for patients with advanced kidney disease referred for the kidney transplant evaluation and selection process.

Key Points Question How have US clinicians planned for and responded to resource limitation during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic? Findings This qualitative study included interviews with 61 clinicians across the United States. While institutions planned for an explicit and systematic approach to resource allocation in crisis settings, this approach did not address many challenges encountered by frontline clinicians, leaving them to struggle with what constituted acceptable standards of care and to make difficult allocation decisions. Meaning The findings of this study suggest that expanding the scope of institutional planning to address a broader spectrum of resource limitation may help to support clinicians, promote equity, and optimize care during the pandemic., This qualitative study describes the perspectives and experiences of clinicians involved in institutional planning for resource limitation and/or patient care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic., Importance Little is known about how US clinicians have responded to resource limitation during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Objective To describe the perspectives and experiences of clinicians involved in institutional planning for resource limitation and/or patient care during the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants This qualitative study used inductive thematic analysis of semistructured interviews conducted in April and May 2020 with a national group of clinicians (eg, intensivists, nephrologists, nurses) involved in institutional planning and/or clinical care during the COVID-19 pandemic across the United States. Main Outcomes and Measures Emergent themes describing clinicians’ experience providing care in settings of resource limitation. Results The 61 participants (mean [SD] age, 46 [11] years; 38 [63%] women) included in this study were practicing in 15 US states and were more heavily sampled from areas with the highest rates of COVID-19 infection at the time of interviews (ie, Seattle, New York City, New Orleans). Most participants were White individuals (39 [65%]), were attending physicians (45 [75%]), and were practicing in large academic centers (≥300 beds, 51 [85%]; academic centers, 46 [77%]). Three overlapping and interrelated themes emerged from qualitative analysis, as follows: (1) planning for crisis capacity, (2) adapting to resource limitation, and (3) multiple unprecedented barriers to care delivery. Clinician leaders worked within their institutions to plan a systematic approach for fair allocation of limited resources in crisis settings so that frontline clinicians would not have to make rationing decisions at the bedside. However, even before a declaration of crisis capacity, clinicians encountered varied and sometimes unanticipated forms of resource limitation that could compromise care, require that they make difficult allocation decisions, and contribute to moral distress. Furthermore, unprecedented challenges to caring for patients during the pandemic, including the need to limit in-person interactions, the rapid pace of change, and the dearth of scientific evidence, added to the challenges of caring for patients and communicating with families. Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this qualitative study highlighted the complexity of providing high-quality care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Expanding the scope of institutional planning to address resource limitation challenges that can arise long before declarations of crisis capacity may help to support frontline clinicians, promote equity, and optimize care as the pandemic evolves.

Background Patients with advanced kidney disease are less likely than many patients with other types of serious illness to enroll in hospice. Little is known about real-world clinical decision-making related to hospice for members of this population. Methods We used a text search tool to conduct a thematic analysis of documentation pertaining to hospice in the electronic medical record system of the Department of Veterans Affairs, for a national sample of 1000 patients with advanced kidney disease between 2004 and 2014 who were followed until October 8, 2019. Results Three dominant themes emerged from our qualitative analysis of the electronic medical records of 340 cohort members with notes containing hospice mentions: (1) hospice and usual care as antithetical care models: clinicians appeared to perceive a sharp demarcation between services that could be provided under hospice versus usual care and were often uncertain about hospice eligibility criteria. This could shape decision-making about hospice and dialysis and made it hard to individualize care; (2) hospice as a last resort: patients often were referred to hospice late in the course of illness and did not so much choose hospice as accept these services after all treatment options had been exhausted; and (3) care complexity: patients' complex care needs at the time of hospice referral could complicate transitions to hospice, stretch the limits of home hospice, and promote continued reliance on the acute care system. Conclusions Our findings underscore the need to improve transitions to hospice for patients with advanced kidney disease as they approach the end of life.

Although the benefits of standard dialysis therapy for many older adults with complex comorbid conditions is equivocal, there continues to be substantial moral uncertainty in the practice of withholding and withdrawing dialysis treatment. This chapter reviews several ethical conundrums in palliative care of patients with advanced kidney disease, including uncertainty about the moral status of withholding dialysis and pursuing medical management without dialysis, challenges in decision-making when patients lack capacity to participate, and ethically relevant social and cultural factors influencing practice. Better understanding of the underlying causes of these conundrums reveals opportunities to improve quality of patient care at the individual and system levels by incorporating palliative practices. The chapter also suggests strategies for clinicians to identify and facilitate resolution of ethical conflicts around end-of-life care for patients with advanced kidney disease in clinical practice.

Background The care of patients in the United States who have ESKD is often shaped by their hopes and prognostic expectations related to kidney transplant. Little is known about how patients' engagement in the transplant process might relate to patterns of end-of-life care. Methods We compared six measures of intensity of end-of-life care among adults in the United States with ESKD who died between 2005 and 2014 after experiencing differing exposure to the kidney transplant process. Results Of 567,832 decedents with ESKD, 27,633 (5%) had a functioning kidney transplant at the time of death, 14,653 (3%) had a failed transplant, 16,490 (3%) had been removed from the deceased donor waitlist, 17,010 (3%) were inactive on the waitlist, 11,529 (2%) were active on the waitlist, and 480,517 (85%) had never been waitlisted for or received a transplant (reference group). In adjusted analyses, compared with the reference group, patients exposed to the transplant process were significantly more likely to have been admitted to an intensive care unit and to have received an intensive procedure in the last 30 days of life; they were also significantly more likely to have died in the hospital. Those who died on the transplant waitlist were also less likely than those in the reference group to have been enrolled in hospice and to have discontinued dialysis before death. Conclusions Patients who had engaged in the kidney transplant process received more intensive patterns of end-of-life care than other patients with ESKD. These findings support the relevance of advance care planning, even for this relatively healthy segment of the ESKD population.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Older patients in the intensive care unit are at greater risk of AKI; however, use of kidney replacement therapy in this population is poorly characterized. We describe the triggers and outcomes associated with kidney replacement therapy in older patients with AKI in the intensive care unit. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Our study was a prospective cohort study in 16 Canadian hospitals from September 2013 to November 2015. Patients were ≥65 years old, were critically ill, and had severe AKI; exclusion criteria were urgent kidney replacement therapy for a toxin and ESKD. We recorded triggers for kidney replacement therapy (primary exposure), reasons for not receiving kidney replacement therapy, 90-day mortality (primary outcome), and kidney recovery. RESULTS: Of 499 patients, mean (SD) age was 75 (7) years old, Charlson comorbidity score was 3.0 (2.3), and median (interquartile range) Clinical Frailty Scale score was 4 (3–5). Most were receiving mechanical ventilation (64%; n=319) and vasoactive support (63%; n=314). Clinicians were willing to offer kidney replacement therapy to 361 (72%) patients, and 229 (46%) received kidney replacement therapy. Main triggers for kidney replacement therapy were oligoanuria, fluid overload, and acidemia, whereas main reasons for not receiving therapy were anticipated recovery (67%; n=181) and therapy not consistent with patient preferences for care (24%; n=66). Ninety-day mortality was similar in patients who did and did not receive kidney replacement therapy (50% versus 51%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 1.06); however, decisions to offer kidney replacement therapy varied significantly by patient mix, acuity, and perceived benefit. There were no differences in health-related quality of life or rehospitalization among survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Most older, critically ill patients with severe AKI were perceived as candidates for kidney replacement therapy, and approximately one half received therapy. Both willingness to offer kidney replacement therapy and reasons for not starting showed heterogeneity due to a range in patient-specific factors and clinician perceptions of benefit.

Background Kidney transplants from donors after circulatory death (DCD) make up an increasing proportion of all deceased donor kidney transplants in the United States (US). However, DCD grafts are considered to be of lower quality than kidneys from donors after brain death (DBD). It is unclear whether graft survival is different for these two types of donor kidneys. Materials and methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of US deceased donor kidney recipients using data from the United Network of Organ Sharing from 12/4/2014 to 6/30/2018. We employed a Cox proportional hazard model with mixed effects to compare all-cause graft loss and death-censored graft loss for DCD versus DBD deceased donor kidney transplant recipients. We used transplant center as the random effects term to account for cluster-specific random effects. In the multivariable analysis, we adjusted for recipient characteristics, donor factors, and transplant logistics. Results Our cohort included 27,494 DBD and 7,770 DCD graft recipients transplanted from 2014 to 2018 who were followed over a median of 1.92 years (IQR 1.08–2.83). For DCD compared with DBD recipients, we did not find a significant difference in all-cause graft loss (hazard ratio [HR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87–1.05 in univariable and HR 1.03 [95% CI 0.95–1.13] in multivariable analysis) or for death-censored graft loss (HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.91–1.06) in univariable and 1.05 (95% CI 0.99–1.11) in multivariable analysis). Conclusions For a contemporary cohort of deceased donor kidney transplant recipients, we did not find a difference in the likelihood of graft loss for DCD compared with DBD grafts. These findings signal a need for additional investigation into whether DCD status independently contributes to other important outcomes for current kidney transplant recipients and indices of graft quality.

Throughout the history of dialysis, four bioethical principles — beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy and justice — have been weighted differently based upon changing forces of technologic innovation, resource limitation, and societal values. In the 1960s, a committee of lay people in Seattle attempted to fairly distribute a limited number of maintenance hemodialysis stations guided by considerations of justice. As technology advanced and dialysis was funded under an amendment to the Social Security Act in 1972, focus shifted to providing dialysis for all in need while balancing the burdens of treatment and quality of life, supported by the concepts of beneficence and nonmaleficence. At the end of the last century, the importance of patient preferences and personal values became paramount in medical decisions, reflecting a focus on the principle of autonomy. More recently, greater recognition that health care financial resources are limited makes fair allocation more pressing, again highlighting the importance of distributive justice. The varying application and prioritization of these four principles to both policy and clinical decisions in the United States over the last 50 years makes the history of hemodialysis an instructive platform for understanding principlist bioethics. As medical technology evolves in a landscape of changing personal and societal values, a comprehensive understanding of an ethical framework for evaluating appropriate use of medical interventions enables the clinician to systematically negotiate and optimize difficult ethical situations.

Under the new kidney allocation system (KAS), implemented in 2014, the distribution of the best quality donor kidney grafts shifted between age groups, but it is unclear whether this change translates to meaningful differences in post-transplant outcomes. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 20,345 deceased donor kidney transplant recipients before and 4,605 recipients after implementation of the KAS using data from the United Network of Organ Sharing. Overall, two-year mortality was greater among recipients in the post-KAS era compared with the pre-KAS era (6.31% vs 5.91% respectively, [p = 0.01]), and two-year graft loss was not significantly different between eras (9.95% and 9.65%, respectively [p = 0.13]). In analysis stratified by age group (18-45, 46-55, 56-65, and ≥66 years), relative risk of mortality was 1.48 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.98) among recipients 46-55 years old and 1.47 (95% CI 1.18-1.81) among recipients 56-65 years old. Relative risk of all-cause graft loss was 1.43 (95% CI 1.20-1.70) among recipients 56-65 years old. There were no significant differences in relative risk of mortality or graft loss associated with the KAS era among other age groups. After adjustment for recipient characteristics and characteristics of the changing donor pool, relative risk of two-year mortality and graft loss associated with the post-KAS era was attenuated for recipients aged 46-55 and 56-65 years, but remained statistically significant. In this early analysis after implementation of the KAS, there is suggestion that increased risk of mortality and graft loss may be disproportionately borne by middle-aged recipients, which is only partially accounted for by changes in recipient and donor characteristics. These findings signal a need to continue to monitor the effects of the KAS to ensure that allocation practices both maximize utility of the kidney graft pool and respect fairness between age groups.

The Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP) found that treatment with ezetemibe and low-dose simvastatin reduced the incidence of major atherosclerotic events in patients with kidney disease. Due to the paucity of evidence-based interventions that lower cardiovascular morbidity in this high-risk population, the SHARP trial will likely have a large impact on clinical practice. However, applying the results of clinical trials conducted in select populations to the care of individual patients in real-world settings can be fraught with difficulty. This is especially true when caring for older adults with complex comorbidity and limited life expectancy. These patients are often excluded from clinical trials, frequently have competing health priorities, and may be less likely to benefit and more likely to be harmed by medications. We discuss key considerations in applying the results of the SHARP trial to the care of older adults with CKD in real-world clinical settings using guiding principles set forth by the American Geriatrics Society's Expert Panel on the Care of Older Adults with Multimorbidity. Using this schema, we emphasize the importance of evaluating trial results in the unique context of each patient's goals, values, priorities, and circumstances.