Article Type
Changed
Sat, 10/07/2023 - 13:25

Estimates of chronic kidney disease (CKD) among veterans range between 34% and 47% higher than in the general population.1 As patients progress to end-stage kidney disease and begin chronic dialysis, they often experience further functional and cognitive decline and a high symptom burden, leading to poor quality of life.2 Clinicians should initiate goals of care conversations (GOCCs) to support high-risk patients on dialysis to ensure that the interventions they receive align with their goals and preferences, since many patients on dialysis prefer measures focused on pain relief and discomfort.3,4 While proactive GOCCs are supported among nephrology associations, few such conversations take place.5,6 In one study, more than half of patients on dialysis stated they had not discussed end-of-life preferences in the past 12 months.4 As a result, patients may not consider the larger implications of receiving dialysis indefinitely as a life-sustaining treatment (LST).

In May 2018, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Center for Ethics in Health Care rolled out the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Initiative to proactively engage patients with serious illnesses, such as those with end-stage kidney disease, in GOCCs to clarify their preferences for LSTs.7 After comprehensive training, a preliminary audit at the Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital (EHJVAH) in Hines, Illinois, revealed that only 27% of patients on dialysis had LST preferences documented in a standardized LST note.

Nephrologists cite multiple barriers to proactively addressing goals of care with patients with advanced CKD, including clinician discomfort, perceived lack of time, infrastructure, and training.8,9 Similarly, the absence of a multidisciplinary advance care planning approach—specifically bringing together palliative care (PC) clinicians with nephrologists—has been highlighted but not as well studied.10,11

In this quality improvement (QI) project, we aimed to establish a workflow to enhance collaboration between nephrology and PC and to increase the percentage of VA patients on outpatient hemodialysis who engaged in GOCCs, as documented by completion of an LST progress note in the VA’s electronic health record (EHR). We developed a collaboration among PC, nephrology, and social work to improve the rates of documented GOCCs and LST patients on dialysis.

 

 

Implementation

EHJVAH is a 1A facility with > 80 patients who receive outpatient hemodialysis on campus. At the time of this collaboration in the fall of 2019, the collaborative dialysis team comprised 2 social workers and a nephrologist. The PC team included a coordinator, 2 nurse practitioners, and 3 physicians. A QI nurse was involved in the initial data gathering for this project.

table 1

The PC and nephrology medical directors developed a workflow process that reflected organizational and clinical steps in planning, initiating, and completing GOCCs with patients on outpatient dialysis (Table 1). The proposed process engaged an interdisciplinary PC and nephrology group and was revised to incorporate staff suggestions.

table 2

A prospective review of 85 EHJVAH hemodialysis unit patient records was conducted between September 1, 2019, and September 30, 2020 (Table 2). We reviewed LST completion rates for all patients receiving dialysis within this timeframe. During the intervention period, the PC team approached 40 patients without LST notes to engage in GOCCs.PC completed LST notes for 29 of 40 patients (72%). Of the 11 patients without LST notes, 7 declined a visit and 4 were lost to follow-up. At the end of the study period, 69 patients (81%) on outpatient dialysis had LST progress notes in the EHR.

Discussion

Over the 13-month collaboration, LST note completion rates increased from 27% to 81%, with 69 of 85 patients having a documented LST progress note in the EHR. PC approached nearly half of all patients on dialysis. Most patients agreed to be seen by the PC team, with 72% of those approached agreeing to a PC consultation. Previous research has suggested that having a trusted dialysis staff member included in GOCCs contributes to high acceptance rates.12As such, the QI project relied heavily on the existing rapport between the dialysis staff—in particular the dialysis social workers—and their patients to normalize the PC consultation for all patients on dialysis. This introduction by a trusted staff person may have contributed to higher acceptance rates, and at the time patients on dialysis arrived for the PC appointment, they had a good understanding of the project. By including PC specialists with expertise in advance care planning and communication skills, the partnership successfully created a collaborative process that relied on the skill set of multiple staff and disciplines.

PC is a relatively uncommon partnership for nephrologists, and PC and hospice services are underutilized in patients on dialysis both nationally and within the VA.13-15 Our outcomes could be replicated, as PC is required at all VA sites. One implementation consideration is the additional time this collaboration requires. Although no formal time study was completed, the PC team spent several hours educating nephrology staff, and the social workers spent considerable time reaching, educating, and scheduling veterans into the PC clinic.

Conclusions

The innovation of an interdisciplinary nephrology–PC collaboration was an important step in increasing high-quality GOCCs and eliciting patient preferences for LSTs among patients on dialysis. PC integration for patients on dialysis is associated with improved symptom management, fewer aggressive health care measures, and a higher likelihood of dying in one’s preferred setting.16 While this partnership focused on patients already receiving dialysis, successful PC interventions are felt most keenly upstream, before dialysis initiation.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the contributions of their colleague, Mary McCabe, DNP, Quality Systems Improvement, Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital. The authors also acknowledge the clinical dedication of the dialysis social workers, Sarah Adam, LCSW, and Sarah Kraner, LCSW, without which this collaboration would not have been possible.

Files
References

1. Patel N, Golzy M, Nainani N, et al. Prevalence of various comorbidities among veterans with chronic kidney disease and its comparison with other datasets. Ren Fail. 2016;38(2):204-208. doi:10.3109/0886022X.2015.1117924

2. Weisbord SD, Carmody SS, Bruns FJ, et al. Symptom burden, quality of life, advance care planning and the potential value of palliative care in severely ill haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2003;18(7):1345-1352. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfg105

3. Wachterman MW, Marcantonio ER, Davis RB, et al. Relationship between the prognostic expectations of seriously ill patients undergoing hemodialysis and their nephrologists. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(13):1206-1214. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6036

4. Davison SN. End-of-life care preferences and needs: perceptions of patients with chronic kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(2):195-204. doi:10.2215/CJN.05960809

5. Williams AW, Dwyer AC, Eddy AA, et al; American Society of Nephrology Quality, and Patient Safety Task Force. Critical and honest conversations: the evidence behind the “Choosing Wisely” campaign recommendations by the American Society of Nephrology. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(10):1664-1672. doi:10.2215/CJN.04970512

6. Renal Physicians Association. Shared Decision-Making in the Appropriate Initiation of and Withdrawal from Dialysis. 2nd ed. Renal Physicians Association; 2010.

7. US Department of Veterans Affairs, National Center for Ethics in Health Care. Goals of care conversations training for nurses, social workers, psychologists, and chaplains. Updated October 9, 2018. Accessed August 31, 2023. https://www.ethics.va.gov/goalsofcaretraining/team.asp

8. Goff SL, Unruh ML, Klingensmith J, et al. Advance care planning with patients on hemodialysis: an implementation study. BMC Palliat Care. 2019;18(1):64. Published 2019 Jul 26. doi:10.1186/s12904-019-0437-2

9. O’Hare AM, Szarka J, McFarland LV, et al. Provider perspectives on advance care planning for patients with kidney disease: whose job is it anyway? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11(5):855-866. doi:10.2215/CJN.11351015

10. Koncicki HM, Schell JO. Communication skills and decision making for elderly patients with advanced kidney disease: a guide for nephrologists. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;67(4):688-695. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2015.09.032

11. Holley JL, Davison SN. Advance care planning for patients with advanced CKD: a need to move forward. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;10(3):344-346. doi:10.2215/CJN.00290115

12. Davison SN. Facilitating advance care planning for patients with end-stage renal disease: the patient perspective. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1(5):1023-1028. doi:10.2215/CJN.01050306

13. Murray AM, Arko C, Chen SC, Gilbertson DT, Moss AH. Use of hospice in the United States dialysis population. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1(6):1248-1255. doi:10.2215/CJN.00970306

14. Williams ME, Sandeep J, Catic A. Aging and ESRD demographics: consequences for the practice of dialysis. Semin Dial. 2012;25(6):617-622. doi:10.1111/sdi.12029

15. US Dept of Veterans Affairs. FY 2020 annual report. Palliative and hospice care.

16. Chandna SM, Da Silva-Gane M, Marshall C, Warwicker P, Greenwood RN, Farrington K. Survival of elderly patients with stage 5 CKD: comparison of conservative management and renal replacement therapy. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26(5):1608-1614. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfq630

17. Fadem SZ, Fadem J. HD mortality predictor. Accessed August 31, 2023. http://touchcalc.com/calculators/sq

18. National Center for Ethics in Health Care. Setting health care goals: a guide for people with hearth problems. Updated June 2016. Accessed August 31, 2023. https://www.ethics.va.gov/docs/GoCC/lst_booklet_for_patients_setting_health_care_goals_final.pdf

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Alexi Vahlkamp, MAa; Julia Schneider, MDa,b; Talar Markossian, PhDb; Salva Balbale, PhDa,c; Cara Ray, PhDa;  Kevin Stroupe, PhDa,b; Seema Limaye, MDa,b

Correspondence:  Alexi Vahlkamp  (alexi.vahlkamp@va.gov)

aEdward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois

bLoyola University Chicago, Illinois

cNorthwestern University, Chicago, Illinois

Author Disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest or outside sources of funding with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Ethics and consent

The Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital Institutional Review Board approved this study with a waiver of exemption.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(10)a
Publications
Topics
Page Number
349
Sections
Files
Files
Author and Disclosure Information

Alexi Vahlkamp, MAa; Julia Schneider, MDa,b; Talar Markossian, PhDb; Salva Balbale, PhDa,c; Cara Ray, PhDa;  Kevin Stroupe, PhDa,b; Seema Limaye, MDa,b

Correspondence:  Alexi Vahlkamp  (alexi.vahlkamp@va.gov)

aEdward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois

bLoyola University Chicago, Illinois

cNorthwestern University, Chicago, Illinois

Author Disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest or outside sources of funding with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Ethics and consent

The Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital Institutional Review Board approved this study with a waiver of exemption.

Author and Disclosure Information

Alexi Vahlkamp, MAa; Julia Schneider, MDa,b; Talar Markossian, PhDb; Salva Balbale, PhDa,c; Cara Ray, PhDa;  Kevin Stroupe, PhDa,b; Seema Limaye, MDa,b

Correspondence:  Alexi Vahlkamp  (alexi.vahlkamp@va.gov)

aEdward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois

bLoyola University Chicago, Illinois

cNorthwestern University, Chicago, Illinois

Author Disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest or outside sources of funding with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Ethics and consent

The Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital Institutional Review Board approved this study with a waiver of exemption.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Estimates of chronic kidney disease (CKD) among veterans range between 34% and 47% higher than in the general population.1 As patients progress to end-stage kidney disease and begin chronic dialysis, they often experience further functional and cognitive decline and a high symptom burden, leading to poor quality of life.2 Clinicians should initiate goals of care conversations (GOCCs) to support high-risk patients on dialysis to ensure that the interventions they receive align with their goals and preferences, since many patients on dialysis prefer measures focused on pain relief and discomfort.3,4 While proactive GOCCs are supported among nephrology associations, few such conversations take place.5,6 In one study, more than half of patients on dialysis stated they had not discussed end-of-life preferences in the past 12 months.4 As a result, patients may not consider the larger implications of receiving dialysis indefinitely as a life-sustaining treatment (LST).

In May 2018, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Center for Ethics in Health Care rolled out the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Initiative to proactively engage patients with serious illnesses, such as those with end-stage kidney disease, in GOCCs to clarify their preferences for LSTs.7 After comprehensive training, a preliminary audit at the Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital (EHJVAH) in Hines, Illinois, revealed that only 27% of patients on dialysis had LST preferences documented in a standardized LST note.

Nephrologists cite multiple barriers to proactively addressing goals of care with patients with advanced CKD, including clinician discomfort, perceived lack of time, infrastructure, and training.8,9 Similarly, the absence of a multidisciplinary advance care planning approach—specifically bringing together palliative care (PC) clinicians with nephrologists—has been highlighted but not as well studied.10,11

In this quality improvement (QI) project, we aimed to establish a workflow to enhance collaboration between nephrology and PC and to increase the percentage of VA patients on outpatient hemodialysis who engaged in GOCCs, as documented by completion of an LST progress note in the VA’s electronic health record (EHR). We developed a collaboration among PC, nephrology, and social work to improve the rates of documented GOCCs and LST patients on dialysis.

 

 

Implementation

EHJVAH is a 1A facility with > 80 patients who receive outpatient hemodialysis on campus. At the time of this collaboration in the fall of 2019, the collaborative dialysis team comprised 2 social workers and a nephrologist. The PC team included a coordinator, 2 nurse practitioners, and 3 physicians. A QI nurse was involved in the initial data gathering for this project.

table 1

The PC and nephrology medical directors developed a workflow process that reflected organizational and clinical steps in planning, initiating, and completing GOCCs with patients on outpatient dialysis (Table 1). The proposed process engaged an interdisciplinary PC and nephrology group and was revised to incorporate staff suggestions.

table 2

A prospective review of 85 EHJVAH hemodialysis unit patient records was conducted between September 1, 2019, and September 30, 2020 (Table 2). We reviewed LST completion rates for all patients receiving dialysis within this timeframe. During the intervention period, the PC team approached 40 patients without LST notes to engage in GOCCs.PC completed LST notes for 29 of 40 patients (72%). Of the 11 patients without LST notes, 7 declined a visit and 4 were lost to follow-up. At the end of the study period, 69 patients (81%) on outpatient dialysis had LST progress notes in the EHR.

Discussion

Over the 13-month collaboration, LST note completion rates increased from 27% to 81%, with 69 of 85 patients having a documented LST progress note in the EHR. PC approached nearly half of all patients on dialysis. Most patients agreed to be seen by the PC team, with 72% of those approached agreeing to a PC consultation. Previous research has suggested that having a trusted dialysis staff member included in GOCCs contributes to high acceptance rates.12As such, the QI project relied heavily on the existing rapport between the dialysis staff—in particular the dialysis social workers—and their patients to normalize the PC consultation for all patients on dialysis. This introduction by a trusted staff person may have contributed to higher acceptance rates, and at the time patients on dialysis arrived for the PC appointment, they had a good understanding of the project. By including PC specialists with expertise in advance care planning and communication skills, the partnership successfully created a collaborative process that relied on the skill set of multiple staff and disciplines.

PC is a relatively uncommon partnership for nephrologists, and PC and hospice services are underutilized in patients on dialysis both nationally and within the VA.13-15 Our outcomes could be replicated, as PC is required at all VA sites. One implementation consideration is the additional time this collaboration requires. Although no formal time study was completed, the PC team spent several hours educating nephrology staff, and the social workers spent considerable time reaching, educating, and scheduling veterans into the PC clinic.

Conclusions

The innovation of an interdisciplinary nephrology–PC collaboration was an important step in increasing high-quality GOCCs and eliciting patient preferences for LSTs among patients on dialysis. PC integration for patients on dialysis is associated with improved symptom management, fewer aggressive health care measures, and a higher likelihood of dying in one’s preferred setting.16 While this partnership focused on patients already receiving dialysis, successful PC interventions are felt most keenly upstream, before dialysis initiation.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the contributions of their colleague, Mary McCabe, DNP, Quality Systems Improvement, Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital. The authors also acknowledge the clinical dedication of the dialysis social workers, Sarah Adam, LCSW, and Sarah Kraner, LCSW, without which this collaboration would not have been possible.

Estimates of chronic kidney disease (CKD) among veterans range between 34% and 47% higher than in the general population.1 As patients progress to end-stage kidney disease and begin chronic dialysis, they often experience further functional and cognitive decline and a high symptom burden, leading to poor quality of life.2 Clinicians should initiate goals of care conversations (GOCCs) to support high-risk patients on dialysis to ensure that the interventions they receive align with their goals and preferences, since many patients on dialysis prefer measures focused on pain relief and discomfort.3,4 While proactive GOCCs are supported among nephrology associations, few such conversations take place.5,6 In one study, more than half of patients on dialysis stated they had not discussed end-of-life preferences in the past 12 months.4 As a result, patients may not consider the larger implications of receiving dialysis indefinitely as a life-sustaining treatment (LST).

In May 2018, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Center for Ethics in Health Care rolled out the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Initiative to proactively engage patients with serious illnesses, such as those with end-stage kidney disease, in GOCCs to clarify their preferences for LSTs.7 After comprehensive training, a preliminary audit at the Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital (EHJVAH) in Hines, Illinois, revealed that only 27% of patients on dialysis had LST preferences documented in a standardized LST note.

Nephrologists cite multiple barriers to proactively addressing goals of care with patients with advanced CKD, including clinician discomfort, perceived lack of time, infrastructure, and training.8,9 Similarly, the absence of a multidisciplinary advance care planning approach—specifically bringing together palliative care (PC) clinicians with nephrologists—has been highlighted but not as well studied.10,11

In this quality improvement (QI) project, we aimed to establish a workflow to enhance collaboration between nephrology and PC and to increase the percentage of VA patients on outpatient hemodialysis who engaged in GOCCs, as documented by completion of an LST progress note in the VA’s electronic health record (EHR). We developed a collaboration among PC, nephrology, and social work to improve the rates of documented GOCCs and LST patients on dialysis.

 

 

Implementation

EHJVAH is a 1A facility with > 80 patients who receive outpatient hemodialysis on campus. At the time of this collaboration in the fall of 2019, the collaborative dialysis team comprised 2 social workers and a nephrologist. The PC team included a coordinator, 2 nurse practitioners, and 3 physicians. A QI nurse was involved in the initial data gathering for this project.

table 1

The PC and nephrology medical directors developed a workflow process that reflected organizational and clinical steps in planning, initiating, and completing GOCCs with patients on outpatient dialysis (Table 1). The proposed process engaged an interdisciplinary PC and nephrology group and was revised to incorporate staff suggestions.

table 2

A prospective review of 85 EHJVAH hemodialysis unit patient records was conducted between September 1, 2019, and September 30, 2020 (Table 2). We reviewed LST completion rates for all patients receiving dialysis within this timeframe. During the intervention period, the PC team approached 40 patients without LST notes to engage in GOCCs.PC completed LST notes for 29 of 40 patients (72%). Of the 11 patients without LST notes, 7 declined a visit and 4 were lost to follow-up. At the end of the study period, 69 patients (81%) on outpatient dialysis had LST progress notes in the EHR.

Discussion

Over the 13-month collaboration, LST note completion rates increased from 27% to 81%, with 69 of 85 patients having a documented LST progress note in the EHR. PC approached nearly half of all patients on dialysis. Most patients agreed to be seen by the PC team, with 72% of those approached agreeing to a PC consultation. Previous research has suggested that having a trusted dialysis staff member included in GOCCs contributes to high acceptance rates.12As such, the QI project relied heavily on the existing rapport between the dialysis staff—in particular the dialysis social workers—and their patients to normalize the PC consultation for all patients on dialysis. This introduction by a trusted staff person may have contributed to higher acceptance rates, and at the time patients on dialysis arrived for the PC appointment, they had a good understanding of the project. By including PC specialists with expertise in advance care planning and communication skills, the partnership successfully created a collaborative process that relied on the skill set of multiple staff and disciplines.

PC is a relatively uncommon partnership for nephrologists, and PC and hospice services are underutilized in patients on dialysis both nationally and within the VA.13-15 Our outcomes could be replicated, as PC is required at all VA sites. One implementation consideration is the additional time this collaboration requires. Although no formal time study was completed, the PC team spent several hours educating nephrology staff, and the social workers spent considerable time reaching, educating, and scheduling veterans into the PC clinic.

Conclusions

The innovation of an interdisciplinary nephrology–PC collaboration was an important step in increasing high-quality GOCCs and eliciting patient preferences for LSTs among patients on dialysis. PC integration for patients on dialysis is associated with improved symptom management, fewer aggressive health care measures, and a higher likelihood of dying in one’s preferred setting.16 While this partnership focused on patients already receiving dialysis, successful PC interventions are felt most keenly upstream, before dialysis initiation.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the contributions of their colleague, Mary McCabe, DNP, Quality Systems Improvement, Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital. The authors also acknowledge the clinical dedication of the dialysis social workers, Sarah Adam, LCSW, and Sarah Kraner, LCSW, without which this collaboration would not have been possible.

References

1. Patel N, Golzy M, Nainani N, et al. Prevalence of various comorbidities among veterans with chronic kidney disease and its comparison with other datasets. Ren Fail. 2016;38(2):204-208. doi:10.3109/0886022X.2015.1117924

2. Weisbord SD, Carmody SS, Bruns FJ, et al. Symptom burden, quality of life, advance care planning and the potential value of palliative care in severely ill haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2003;18(7):1345-1352. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfg105

3. Wachterman MW, Marcantonio ER, Davis RB, et al. Relationship between the prognostic expectations of seriously ill patients undergoing hemodialysis and their nephrologists. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(13):1206-1214. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6036

4. Davison SN. End-of-life care preferences and needs: perceptions of patients with chronic kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(2):195-204. doi:10.2215/CJN.05960809

5. Williams AW, Dwyer AC, Eddy AA, et al; American Society of Nephrology Quality, and Patient Safety Task Force. Critical and honest conversations: the evidence behind the “Choosing Wisely” campaign recommendations by the American Society of Nephrology. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(10):1664-1672. doi:10.2215/CJN.04970512

6. Renal Physicians Association. Shared Decision-Making in the Appropriate Initiation of and Withdrawal from Dialysis. 2nd ed. Renal Physicians Association; 2010.

7. US Department of Veterans Affairs, National Center for Ethics in Health Care. Goals of care conversations training for nurses, social workers, psychologists, and chaplains. Updated October 9, 2018. Accessed August 31, 2023. https://www.ethics.va.gov/goalsofcaretraining/team.asp

8. Goff SL, Unruh ML, Klingensmith J, et al. Advance care planning with patients on hemodialysis: an implementation study. BMC Palliat Care. 2019;18(1):64. Published 2019 Jul 26. doi:10.1186/s12904-019-0437-2

9. O’Hare AM, Szarka J, McFarland LV, et al. Provider perspectives on advance care planning for patients with kidney disease: whose job is it anyway? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11(5):855-866. doi:10.2215/CJN.11351015

10. Koncicki HM, Schell JO. Communication skills and decision making for elderly patients with advanced kidney disease: a guide for nephrologists. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;67(4):688-695. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2015.09.032

11. Holley JL, Davison SN. Advance care planning for patients with advanced CKD: a need to move forward. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;10(3):344-346. doi:10.2215/CJN.00290115

12. Davison SN. Facilitating advance care planning for patients with end-stage renal disease: the patient perspective. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1(5):1023-1028. doi:10.2215/CJN.01050306

13. Murray AM, Arko C, Chen SC, Gilbertson DT, Moss AH. Use of hospice in the United States dialysis population. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1(6):1248-1255. doi:10.2215/CJN.00970306

14. Williams ME, Sandeep J, Catic A. Aging and ESRD demographics: consequences for the practice of dialysis. Semin Dial. 2012;25(6):617-622. doi:10.1111/sdi.12029

15. US Dept of Veterans Affairs. FY 2020 annual report. Palliative and hospice care.

16. Chandna SM, Da Silva-Gane M, Marshall C, Warwicker P, Greenwood RN, Farrington K. Survival of elderly patients with stage 5 CKD: comparison of conservative management and renal replacement therapy. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26(5):1608-1614. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfq630

17. Fadem SZ, Fadem J. HD mortality predictor. Accessed August 31, 2023. http://touchcalc.com/calculators/sq

18. National Center for Ethics in Health Care. Setting health care goals: a guide for people with hearth problems. Updated June 2016. Accessed August 31, 2023. https://www.ethics.va.gov/docs/GoCC/lst_booklet_for_patients_setting_health_care_goals_final.pdf

References

1. Patel N, Golzy M, Nainani N, et al. Prevalence of various comorbidities among veterans with chronic kidney disease and its comparison with other datasets. Ren Fail. 2016;38(2):204-208. doi:10.3109/0886022X.2015.1117924

2. Weisbord SD, Carmody SS, Bruns FJ, et al. Symptom burden, quality of life, advance care planning and the potential value of palliative care in severely ill haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2003;18(7):1345-1352. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfg105

3. Wachterman MW, Marcantonio ER, Davis RB, et al. Relationship between the prognostic expectations of seriously ill patients undergoing hemodialysis and their nephrologists. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(13):1206-1214. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6036

4. Davison SN. End-of-life care preferences and needs: perceptions of patients with chronic kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(2):195-204. doi:10.2215/CJN.05960809

5. Williams AW, Dwyer AC, Eddy AA, et al; American Society of Nephrology Quality, and Patient Safety Task Force. Critical and honest conversations: the evidence behind the “Choosing Wisely” campaign recommendations by the American Society of Nephrology. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(10):1664-1672. doi:10.2215/CJN.04970512

6. Renal Physicians Association. Shared Decision-Making in the Appropriate Initiation of and Withdrawal from Dialysis. 2nd ed. Renal Physicians Association; 2010.

7. US Department of Veterans Affairs, National Center for Ethics in Health Care. Goals of care conversations training for nurses, social workers, psychologists, and chaplains. Updated October 9, 2018. Accessed August 31, 2023. https://www.ethics.va.gov/goalsofcaretraining/team.asp

8. Goff SL, Unruh ML, Klingensmith J, et al. Advance care planning with patients on hemodialysis: an implementation study. BMC Palliat Care. 2019;18(1):64. Published 2019 Jul 26. doi:10.1186/s12904-019-0437-2

9. O’Hare AM, Szarka J, McFarland LV, et al. Provider perspectives on advance care planning for patients with kidney disease: whose job is it anyway? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11(5):855-866. doi:10.2215/CJN.11351015

10. Koncicki HM, Schell JO. Communication skills and decision making for elderly patients with advanced kidney disease: a guide for nephrologists. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;67(4):688-695. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2015.09.032

11. Holley JL, Davison SN. Advance care planning for patients with advanced CKD: a need to move forward. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;10(3):344-346. doi:10.2215/CJN.00290115

12. Davison SN. Facilitating advance care planning for patients with end-stage renal disease: the patient perspective. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1(5):1023-1028. doi:10.2215/CJN.01050306

13. Murray AM, Arko C, Chen SC, Gilbertson DT, Moss AH. Use of hospice in the United States dialysis population. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1(6):1248-1255. doi:10.2215/CJN.00970306

14. Williams ME, Sandeep J, Catic A. Aging and ESRD demographics: consequences for the practice of dialysis. Semin Dial. 2012;25(6):617-622. doi:10.1111/sdi.12029

15. US Dept of Veterans Affairs. FY 2020 annual report. Palliative and hospice care.

16. Chandna SM, Da Silva-Gane M, Marshall C, Warwicker P, Greenwood RN, Farrington K. Survival of elderly patients with stage 5 CKD: comparison of conservative management and renal replacement therapy. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26(5):1608-1614. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfq630

17. Fadem SZ, Fadem J. HD mortality predictor. Accessed August 31, 2023. http://touchcalc.com/calculators/sq

18. National Center for Ethics in Health Care. Setting health care goals: a guide for people with hearth problems. Updated June 2016. Accessed August 31, 2023. https://www.ethics.va.gov/docs/GoCC/lst_booklet_for_patients_setting_health_care_goals_final.pdf

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(10)a
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(10)a
Page Number
349
Page Number
349
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Eyebrow Default
Program Profile
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media
Media Files