BackgroundNeurocognitive testing shows that cognitive impairment is common among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis. Identification of a well performing screening test for cognitive impairment might allow for broader assessment in dialysis facilities and thus optimal delivery of education and medical management.MethodsFrom 2015 to 2018, in a cohort of 150 patients on hemodialysis, we performed a set of comprehensive neurocognitive tests that included the cognitive domains of memory, attention, and executive function to classify whether participants had normal cognitive function versus mild, moderate, or severe cognitive impairment. Using area-under-the-curve (AUC) analysis, we then examined the predictive ability of the Mini Mental State Examination, the Modified Mini Mental State Examination, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the Trail Making Test Part B, the Mini-Cog test, and the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, determining each test’s performance for identifying severe cognitive impairment.ResultsMean age was 64 years; 61% were men, 39% were black, and 94% had at least a high-school education. Of the 150 participants, 21% had normal cognitive function, 17% had mild cognitive impairment, 33% had moderate impairment, and 29% had severe impairment. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment had the highest overall predictive ability for severe cognitive impairment (AUC, 0.81); a score of ≤21 had a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 55% for severe impairment, with a negative predictive value of 91%. The Trails B and Digit Symbol tests also performed reasonably well (AUCs, 0.73 and 0.78, respectively). The other tests had lower predictive performances.ConclusionsThe Montreal Cognitive Assessment, a widely available and brief cognitive screening tool, showed high sensitivity and moderate specificity in detecting severe cognitive impairment in patients on maintenance hemodialysis.

Introduction: In 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services allowed survivors of hospitalized acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (AKI-D) who were ambulatory and still dependent on hemodialysis (HD) to receive treatment in outpatient dialysis facilities. This policy change generated the ongoing need to improve AKI-D care in the outpatient setting. Methods: Quality improvement study in adult patients admitted to an outpatient HD unit with the diagnosis of AKI-D. We developed a protocol to manage these patients that included: a) multidisciplinary evaluations; b) personalized 3-tier HD prescription for dose/ultrafiltration rate and frequency; c) weekly assessment of kidney recovery; and d) patient empowerment. Patient- and protocol-specific characteristics were described. We analyzed hourly HD data and protocol adherence, and relevant hemodynamic data were compared according to HD-free survival at 90 days. Results: A total of 457.3 hours of HD from nine patients under the AKI-D protocol were interrogated. Three out of nine patients were alive and liberated from HD within the first 90 days of outpatient HD. Overall protocol adherence was 53.8% and did not differ by HD-free survival (54.5% vs. 53.7% in those that recovered vs. not). Protocol adherence was associated with fewer intradialytic hypotension events (peak to nadir BP, p<0.01), while intradialytic hypotension (pre to post BP) occurred more frequently in patients who did not recover kidney function (p=0.009). Conclusion: We demonstrated the feasibility of implementing a management protocol for AKI-D patients in an outpatient dialysis facility. We found that fewer episodes of intradialytic hypotension occurred when the outpatient HD management was adherent to the protocol. The feasibility of this protocol should be confirmed in other facilities, and importantly, efficacy testing to evaluate its impact on AKI-D outpatient care is necessary.

Background Overnight, physicians in training receive less direct supervision. Decreased direct supervision requires trainees to appropriately assess patients at risk of clinical deterioration and escalate to supervising physicians. Failure of trainees to escalate contributes to adverse patient safety events. Objective To standardize the evaluation of patients at risk of deterioration overnight by internal medicine residents, increase communication between residents and supervising physicians, and improve perceptions of patient safety at a tertiary academic medical center. Methods A multidisciplinary stakeholder team developed an overnight escalation-of-care protocol for residents. The protocol was implemented with badge buddies and an educational campaign targeted at residents, supervising physicians, and nursing staff. Residents and supervising physicians completed anonymous surveys to assess the use of the protocol; the frequency of overnight communication between residents and supervising physicians; and perceptions of escalation and patient safety before, immediately after (“early postintervention”), and 8 months after (“delayed postintervention”) the intervention. Results Seventy-five (100%) residents participated in the intervention, and 57–89% of those invited to complete surveys at the various time points responded. After the intervention, 82% of residents reported using the protocol, though no change was observed in the frequency of communication between residents and supervising physicians. After the implementation, residents perceived that patient care was safer (early postintervention, 47%; delayed postintervention, 72%; P = 0.02), and interns expressed decreased fear of waking and being criticized by supervising physicians. Conclusion An escalation-of-care protocol was developed and successfully implemented using a multimodal approach. The implementation and dissemination of the protocol standardized resident escalation overnight and improved resident-perceived patient safety and interns’ comfort with escalation.

No abstract