Advanced practice nurses in nephrology

With the growing shortage of nephrologists and the increasing number of end-stage renal disease patients, collaborative practice arrangements between nephrologists and advanced practice nurses (APNs) are becoming more common. This report addresses both the credentials and scope of practice of nephrology APNs. Because the APN role in nephrology is multifaceted, role responsibilities in the nephrology office, chronic dialysis unit, and acute care setting are outlined. Nephrologists and APNs have overlapping scopes of practice, and practicing collaboratively allows each health care professional to use their strengths maximally. Barriers to practice and reimbursement issues are discussed. Documentation needed to enter into collaborative practice is delineated. This includes collaborative practice agreements, scope of practice statements, prescribing protocols, hospital credentialing, and dialysis facility credentialing. The goal of the collaborative practice model is to improve traditional patient care and delivery of services. The APN's role complements that of the nephrologist and offers a unique, holistic approach to the quality of patient care that is needed in the current health care environment.     

Nephrologists as primary care providers: a review of the issues

Considering the role of nephrologists as primary care providers for their chronic dialysis patients requires exploration of a number of factors. These factors include the definition of a primary care provider, the time and expertise needed to provide primary care, the expectations of nephrologists and dialysis patients who give and receive primary care, the appropriate preventive care for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, and the current and future roles of nephrologists within a changing health care environment. Unfortunately, few studies have addressed these issues, and there is little objective information on which to base guidelines and recommendations about nephrologist-directed primary care of ESRD patients. Most nephrologists spend a significant portion (30% to 35%) of their time caring for dialysis patients, and 90% report providing primary care to dialysis patients. Most dialysis patients view their nephrologist as their primary care provider. The increasingly aged and ill ESRD population will undoubtedly necessitate additional time and expertise for care from an understaffed nephrology work force. The increased use of advanced practice nurses and alliances with health care delivery systems under global capitation programs may develop into effective strategies to provide care for an increasing population of dialysis patients. The nonnephrologic health care needs, including specific and appropriate cancer screening and preventive health care protocols for ESRD patients whose life expectancies are significantly less than the general population, are unclear. The issues involved in considering nephrologists as primary caregivers for ESRD patients include these and other related factors, and will be discussed in this review.     

Training,certification, and reimbursement for nephrology procedures

The field of interventional nephrology is rapidly developing as an important new area of nephrology practice that holds great promise for improved patient care, outcomes, and cost control. This development is contingent on nephrologists acquiring the necessary knowledge and skills through suitable training and experience, and obtaining hospital privileges to perform these interventions. As more training programs are created, and credentialing criteria are established and accepted, it will become more practical for nephrologists to become interventionists. Reimbursement for interventional procedures can be complicated and confusing, with special problems applicable to a nephrology practice involved in the overall care of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. It is essential to become familiar with applicable procedure codes, global periods, and code modifiers to correctly describe these procedures and receive correct reimbursement. Nephrologists work together with vascular access surgeons and interventional radiologists to provide care for dialysis patients. The role of each specialist in the management of vascular access depends on his or her level of interest, knowledge, and technical skill. These roles may vary considerably from one practice to another. There is potential for this area to become highly contentious, especially if one specialist feels threatened by the activities of another. Optimal patient care will be achieved only if all involved physicians take a serious intellectual interest in vascular access, develop superior clinical skills, and maintain cooperative, collegial, relationships.     

RPA/ASN position on the use of disease management in ESRD care

The care of patients with chronic renal insufficiency and ESRD is at a major crossroad, and there is considerable uncertainty about the future. There are substantial risks for both the patients and the caregivers as well as opportunities to improve patient care and the milieu in which the care is provided. The treatment of ESRD and chronic renal insufficiency is moving into an era of collaborative care with RCMs, physician assistants, and advanced practice nurses predicated in large part on the anticipated shortage of nephrologists as the ESRD patient population continues to increase. The future of reimbursement is uncertain and payers may well have difficulty responding to new models of providing care. It is imperative that nephrologists accept the challenge and assume the leadership role as disease management and other collaborative methodologies of caring for our patients develop.     

Patterns of patient care reported by nephrologists: implications for nephrology training

The recent estimate of the nephrology workforce indicates that more nephrologists must be trained to care for the increasing number of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). This conclusion was based on a 1996 survey indicating that nephrologists devote an average of 35% of their activities caring for ESRD patients. We compared data in that survey with those from a 1991 survey of members of the American Society of Nephrology to determine similarities between the different periods. The 1,590 responders in the 1991 survey (35% of the American Society of Nephrology membership) indicated that 50% devoted more than 75% of their effort to patient care, predominately for patients with general nephrology and hypertension problems. Approximately 69% of respondents cared for fewer than 50 hemodialysis patients, and the majority of respondents felt the maximum number of dialysis patients for whom they could provide adequate medical care would be 50. Most respondents felt that there would be a deficiency of nephrologists in their community within 5 years. Results from both the 1991 and 1996 surveys indicate that practice patterns have not changed markedly; combining results from the two surveys makes it clear that more nephrologists are needed to care for the projected increase in dialysis patients. Because nephrologists should be involved in the management of the pre-ESRD patient, training programs will have to broaden the preparation of future nephrologists.     

Advanced practice nurses in nephrology: collaborative solutions to manpower shortages

As the shortages of both nephrologists and experienced staff nurses increase, innovative solutions will be necessary. The most common CPM will continue to be the nephrology APN hired by and working in collaborative practice with nephrologists to provide care across all settings (hospital, office and dialysis unit). Creative arrangements between dialysis corporations, nephrologists, and APNs may also provide for a team approach for treating renal disease patients within the dialysis unit. The team would include the nephrologist, APN, dialysis staff, dietitian, and social worker. Each team member would fulfill roles appropriate to their training, experience, and demonstrated level of competence with the common goal of improved patient outcomes. This would provide the best use of limited resources.     

Overcoming early learning barriers in hemodialysis patients: the use of screening and educational reinforcement to improve treatment outcomes

A dialysis team project to improve patient knowledge resulted in a significant improvement in patient understanding of health-risk behavior related to blood pressure and albumin management in a large hemodialysis clinic. This project demonstrates that brief intervention combined with a well-coordinated renal team can successfully steer the team's time and resources toward improving treatment outcomes, despite the busy feel of the day-to-day dialysis clinic. Analysis of the barriers to successfully educating the ESRD patient is performed and the full intervention is described. The nephrology social worker, the RN and an area manager of 5 outpatient dialysis clinics speak of their experience with the project. A participant (ESRD patient) describes his sense of satisfaction with care.     

Improving outcomes in CKD and ESRD patients: carrying the torch from training to practice

Practicing nephrologists are spending more time caring for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. Despite this focus, and considerable advances in the understanding of those aspects of care that impact on clinical outcomes, morbidity, mortality, and quality of life for these patients has not improved substantially over the past decade. One of the possible explanations for this lack of progress is the structure of current nephrology training programs, where ESRD and CKD patient care is not emphasized. To address this issue, we developed a short preceptorship for second-year nephrology fellows, including didactic lectures and workshops. Of 67 participating fellows, 50% were from programs offering 3 or fewer months of exposure to outpatient hemodialysis, and 25% reported no exposure to peritoneal dialysis. Of more concern, 25% reported no "official rounds" with an attending nephrologist on dialysis patients. If nephrologists are to take their appropriate place as leaders of the care delivery team, nephrology fellowships must be restructured with appropriate emphasis placed on the comprehensive care of ESRD and CKD patients.     

Referral and comanagement of the patient with CKD

CKD is a common condition with well-documented associated morbidity and mortality. Given the substantial disease burden of CKD and the cost of ESRD, interventions to delay progression and decrease comorbidity remain an important part of CKD care. Early referral to nephrologists has been shown to delay progression of CKD. Conversely, late referral has been associated with increased hospitalizations, higher mortality, and worsened secondary outcomes. Late referral to nephrology has been consequent to numerous factors, including the health care system, provider issues, and patient related factors. In addition to timely referral to nephrologists, the optimal modality to provide care for CKD patients has also been evaluated. Multidisciplinary clinics have shown significant improvements in other disease states. Data for the use of these clinics have shown benefit in mortality, progression, and laboratory markers of disease severity. However, studies supporting the use of multidisciplinary clinics in CKD have been mixed. Evidence-based guidelines from groups, including Renal Physicians Association and NKF, provide tools for management of CKD patients by both generalists and nephrologists. Through the use of guidelines, timely referral, and a multidisciplinary approach to care, the ability to provide effective and efficient care for CKD patients can be improved. We present a model to guide a multidisciplinary comanagement approach to providing care to patients with CKD.     

The role of physician assistants in improving renal care

Currently, nephrology PAs remain a small group. According to 2003 census data from The American Academy of Nephrology Physician Assistants, only 98 of 20,646 survey respondents identified themselves as practicing in nephrology. The future of PAs or nurse practitioners in nephrology is not only very bright, but is also an absolute necessity. We have known for many years that the number of individuals with kidney disease in the United States is increasing at a rate that outpaces our ability to develop and train nephrologists. This has resulted in an ever-increasing ratio of patients to clinical nephrologists. The workload for management of dialysis patients on a daily basis is becoming exhaustive and will not improve. The fastest growing segment of dialysis patients is now people in their 70s and 80s, and they bring with them multiple chronic health problems that are affected by dialysis and the treatment of their renal disease. The result is the need for closer monitoring, not less. The role of physician extenders can have a very positive impact for this patient population. Being the eyes, ears, nose, and fingers of our nephrologists can help in avoiding potential major problems in the outpatient arena. There is not a magic formula in caring for this patient population; it is a matter of spending time and becoming familiar with our patients, a premium most nephrologists do not have at present. It is not a matter of willingness; it is a matter of capability, of being in more than one place, and of having time to make the patient assessments. I think there is a great opportunity for nephrologists to create a new segment of providers to assist them in these endeavors. They can sponsor PAs as preceptors before graduation so that the students can have the opportunity to see what it takes to care for this population, the level of medicine they need to learn, and the responsibility they will need to accept. The nephrologist will benefit from working with a PA that has a good foundation of medical education that the nephrologist can tailor to his or her own method of practice in order to become comfortable in the relationship long-term. The future of care for our end-stage renal disease population needs all our efforts to succeed.     

Primary health care strategies for the prevention of end-stage renal disease in Cuba

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a major health problem in the world, including Cuba. There is an increasing trend in both the incidence and prevalence of ESRD. Global projections consistently show an increase of patients in maintenance dialysis, and also an epidemic trend in diabetes mellitus and hypertension, two diseases that are leading causes of ESRD in most countries. A new paradigm is necessary to handle this major health problem, such as a public health model that integrates health promotion and disease prevention. In 1996, the Ministry of Public Health of Cuba launched a national program for the prevention of chronic renal failure (CRF). The progressive implementation of this program follows several steps: the analysis of the resources and health situation in the country; epidemiological research to define the burden of CRF; continuing education for nephrologists, family doctors, and other health professionals; and reorientation of primary health care toward increased nephrology services, intervention, and surveillance. The main outcomes of the program have been: a rational redistribution of nephrology services in corresponding health areas of primary health care; nephrologists being brought closer to the community; an improvement in the knowledge and ability of family doctors and nephrologists in the prevention of chronic renal disease; an increase in the number of patients with CRF (serum creatinine > or = 133 micromol/L or > or = 1.5 mg/dL, or a glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min) who are registered in primary health care every year, from a prevalence of 0.59 per 1,000 inhabitants at the beginning of the program in 1996 to 0.92 per 1,000 inhabitants in 2002, with a mean prevalence growth of 9.2% per year; a significant reduction (0.1%) in the incidence of viral hepatitis B in dialysis patients after the implementation of vaccination against viral hepatitis B in CRF patients who are registered in primary health care; and the implementation of CRF surveillance in primary health care, which provides periodic information on CRF burden, patterns, and trends to assist evidence-based public-health decision making, and measures the impact of interventions in the population. Primary health care is an essential tool, and the community is an appropriate social space for health promotion and the prevention of CRF and ESRD.     

Initial experience of a nephrologist-operated vascular access center

A nephrology practice in Alabama did not feel in control of vascular access management. Scheduling delays, as well as variable techniques and outcomes, leading to high morbidity and mortality, caused frustration with the existing care system for vascular access. Our objective was to develop an integrative system of vascular access care, involving nephrologists along with the other caregivers, and to demonstrate an improvement in outcomes. Nephrology Vascular Labs (NVL), a recent RMS-Lifeline acquisition, opened a vascular access center (VAC) as an extension of the nephrology practice. Both pre-ESRD and ESRD patients are evaluated and treated in the VAC. Treatment is rendered in a timely fashion, to the benefit of the patients. Nephrologists serve as the interventionists. More than 90% of vascular access problems detected at dialysis are treated at the VAC. More than 2000 procedures have been performed over 2 years. Procedures carried out include thrombolysis with angioplasty, fluoroscopy alone or with angioplasty, placement of cuffed and noncuffed catheters, removal of cuffed catheters, and minor surgeries. Success rates have been high. Minor and major complications have been relatively low. Referrals to both surgeons and radiologists are shown to emphasize the role of the VAC as part of an integrative system of vascular access care. Results of a patient satisfaction survey were excellent. The VAC has fulfilled the vision of creating a seamless integration of care for vascular access. Hospitalization rate has been reduced and it is suspected that the global cost of access care is markedly lower than prior to the VAC. Multiple nephrologists can rotate as the VAC's interventionist and jointly obtain good outcomes and have little variability among them. Several reasons for using a nephrologists as the interventionist are discussed.     

Enhancing interest in nephrology careers during medical residency

Promoting interest in nephrology as a career is vital to sustain a workforce adequate to meet the projected demand for nephrologists. The educational experiences that internal medicine residents have may play an important role in influencing such choices, and attempts to enrich such experiences could prove a useful strategy to help facilitate interest in careers in nephrology. Like many electives, nephrology rotations typically consist of activities heavily weighted toward inpatient care. This type of elective is unlikely to provide a representative exposure to the breadth of nephrologists' roles and may lack sufficient mentoring opportunities. We describe an innovative design for a nephrology elective that provides residents with educational experiences in both inpatient and outpatient venues and exposure to faculty with diverse interests and areas of expertise. Our experience with this elective in comparison to a traditional inpatient-based elective suggests that the combined elective format is perceived favorably by medical residents and provides them with a better educational experience, more representative exposure to nephrology, positive mentoring experiences, and the potential for greater interest in pursuing nephrology as a career. Our findings offer the possibility that interventions at the level of medical resident education might be a means to help promote interest in careers in nephrology.     

Predialyis Nephrology Care of Older Individuals Approaching End‐Stage Renal Disease

Many older patients with advanced CKD approaching ESRD do not receive timely nephrology care, although data suggest that the situation may be improving. In 2005–2008, 43% of older patients who initiated renal replacement therapy had experienced an outpatient nephrologist consultation more than 1 year before starting treatment. Earlier consultation with a nephrologist has been found to provide better access to peritoneal dialysis and kidney transplantation, better preparation for the chosen dialytic modality, and improved survival after start of dialysis or receipt of a kidney transplant. Recent data suggest that older individuals are less likely to receive treatment for ESRD compared with younger individuals in whom almost all receive dialysis treatment or transplantation. Little is known about the role nephrologists play in the decision whether to initiate dialysis or choose a conservative route among older adults with ESRD. Defining the appropriate role and involvement of nephrologists in the decision about initiating renal replacement therapy in older adults seems ripe for further investigation and discussion.     

Chronic Dialysis and Dialysis Doctors in the United States: A Nephrologist-Historian's Perspective

In an earlier article in Seminars in Dialysis (9:276–281, 1996), the author described the invention of clinical hemodialysis for acute renal failure and its initially equivocal reception by the emerging specialty of nephrology in the United States. A similar story of blunted enthusiasm played out following the invention of the Quinton–Scribner shunt (whose idea “came in the night”), which allowed maintenance treatment for chronic renal failure. Few centers at first could match Belding Scribner's early successes, and some physiology‐oriented university nephrologists envisioned how routine dialysis might swamp other activities. Nonetheless, increasingly complex and successful inventions appeared and prevailed: the chronic dialysis unit, the national dialysis chain. A unique federal entitlement program fostered the spread of maintenance dialysis, but so did the emergence of disposable off‐the‐shelf supplies and many new nephrologists trained in academia but seeking positions in practice. Indeed, the spread of end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) care transformed American nephrology. The essay concludes by considering what nephrologists of the ESRD era share with their patients.     

Doing More Than Caring About Quality

The treatment of chronically ill patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) receiving dialysis therapies has advanced greatly over the years and accomplished many successes in prolonging the life of patients with ESRD, yet has had considerable failures due to the inability to compensate for all functions of the kidneys. In addition, the focus to achieve quality goals for laboratories and vascular access measures may indicate a good quality of care from providers, but meeting these clinical and physiological goals may not fully maximize individual benefit to a patient, may not be aligned with the patient's care goals, and could conceivably impact negatively the patient's experience of care and quality of life. The age of individualized patient centered care is forthcoming with advancements in technology and our understanding of the treatment of renal diseases. The future holds promise for enhancing the quality provided to each patient but will require nephrologists to overcome numerous hurdles. This article provides an opinion on principles that may fundamentally improve the quality of renal disease care in the future and represents themes that can enhance quality, safety, and efficiency in the health care delivery system. It is believed that quality measured from a patient centric perspective will shift the treatment for these chronic disorders to better meet each patient's needs and goals, while evolving an enhanced delivery system for the care of all ESRD patients.     

Physician access and early nephrology care in elderly patients with end-stage renal disease

Early nephrology care may improve treatment outcomes of patients with end-stage renal disease. We sought to examine if physician access affects early nephrology care defined as visiting a nephrologist 12 to 4 months before initiating dialysis. The study population consisted of elderly patients starting hemodialysis whose demographic characteristics and initial dialysis therapy were derived from form 2728 files of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Early nephrology care, chronic kidney disease and co-morbidities along with access to local non-nephrologist physicians and nephrologists were identified based on Medicare claims and/or United States 2000 Census data. About one-third of elderly patients received early nephrology care prior to initiating dialysis. Patients living in an area with a large number of non-nephrologist physicians or living relatively far away from a nephrologist had a lower likelihood of getting early nephrology care prior to initiating dialysis while those in an area with more practicing nephrologists were more likely to get early nephrology care. The study shows that physician access significantly influences the use of early nephrology care among elderly patients progressing to end-stage renal disease in the United States.     

Hemodialysis vascular access options in pediatrics: considerations for patients and practitioners

Recent data indicate that the incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in pediatric patients (age 0–19 years) has increased over the past two decades. Similarly, the prevalence of ESRD has increased threefold over the same period. Hemodialysis (HD) continues to be the most frequently utilized modality for renal replacement therapy in incident pediatric ESRD patients. The number of children on HD exceeded the sum total of those on peritoneal dialysis and those undergoing pre-emptive renal transplantation. Choosing the best vascular access option for pediatric HD patients remains challenging. Despite a national initiative for fistula first in the adult hemodialysis population, the pediatric nephrology community in the United States of America utilizes central venous catheters as the primary dialysis access for most patients. Vascular access management requires proper advance planning to assure that the best permanent access is placed, seamless communication involving a multidisciplinary team of nephrologists, nurses, surgeons, and interventional radiologists, and ongoing monitoring to ensure a long life of use. It is imperative that practitioners have a long-term vision to decrease morbidity in this unique patient population. This article reviews the various types of pediatric vascular accesses used worldwide and the benefits and disadvantages of these various forms of access.     

Length of stay and costs for hospitalized hemodialysis patients: nephrologists versus internists

The high cost of hospitalization for hemodialysis patients has become a major health care issue. To address this issue, length of hospital stay and costs for these patients were compared with services covered by nephrologists and services covered by internists. Hemodialysis patients (n = 161) were prospectively admitted 219 times on alternate days to services covered by nephrologists or by internists from July 1995 to March 1996. Admissions to nonmedical services and admissions for overnight observation were excluded. Length of stay, costs, and risk-adjusted predicted length of stay and costs, as well as the number of consultations were compared between services, using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Readmissions and deaths were compared using chi(2) tests. Mean length of stay for admissions to the nephrology service (n = 114) was 6.3 days compared with 8.1 days for admissions to internal medicine services (n = 105) (P = 0.017). The predicted length of stay was similar. Mean overall cost for admissions under the care of nephrologists was $7,925 versus $10,773 under the care of internists (P = 0.101). The internal medicine service averaged 1.5 consultations versus 0.5 consultations for the nephrology service (P = 0.001). The risk of readmission was 24% for nephrologists and 30% for internists (P = 0.328). Death within 90 days of discharge was 12% for the nephrology group and 22% for the internal medicine group (P = 0.07). The length of stay was significantly shorter for hemodialysis patients under the care of nephrologists compared with internists. The average total costs and risk of readmissions tended to be lower for nephrologists. If these results are corroborated, the care of hemodialysis patients by the nephrologist could diminish the overall expense of the ESRD program.