No abstract

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.

ObjectivesPersons 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.DesignThis study employed a qualitative descriptive methodology. Data were collected through focus groups (cofacilitated by patient partners) and semistructured interviews.SettingFour multidisciplinary CKD clinics across Southern Alberta, Canada.ParticipantsWe 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.AnalysisTranscripts were coded in duplicate, and themes were generated inductively through a thematic analysis approach.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsPatients, 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.

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: 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.