Preventive medical screening is not appropriate for many chronic dialysis patients

Establishing guidelines for the appropriate preventive medical care for chronic dialysis patients requires consideration of many factors. These include the population's underlying risk factors and expected survival, the effectiveness of screening procedures in improving the duration and/or quality of life, and the potential for renal transplantation. Although many nephrologists order and direct routine cancer screening in their dialysis patients, recent studies suggest such screening is not cost effective. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients and peripheral vascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity among dialysis patients, but even less is known about the cost-effectiveness of screening for peripheral vascular and cardiovascular disease risks in ESRD patients. Despite a recently reported overall standardized cancer incidence of 1.18 in dialysis patients compared with normal populations, the shortened expected survival of dialysis patients argues against routine cancer screening in this population. Dialysis units and nephrologists should focus cancer screening on individual patients and include specific cancer risk as well as expected survival assessments and transplant candidacy in their decisions to screen a patient for cancer. Routine cancer screening of all dialysis patients is not indicated. Additional study of the benefits and cost-effectiveness of screening ESRD patients for cardiovascular and peripheral vascular disease risk factors is needed.     

End-stage renal disease and the practice of nephrology

Data from a national survey of 336 nephrologists who provide dialysis care on capitation reimbursement show differences in practice activity associated with the proportion of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). On the average, ESRD patients account for 53% of patients seen by these physicians. Nephrologists who have the majority of their visits with ESRD patients average more than 120 patient encounters per week, approximating the practice workloads of primary care physicians. Nephrologists spend comparable amounts of time providing treatment for ESRD and non-ESRD patients in the same settings, schedule additional office visits for facility dialysis patients, and provide treatment and advice for problems not related to dialysis. Whereas care for acute renal failure patients is primarily based on consultations and involves a narrow focus, treatment for ESRD involves the provision of comprehensive primary medical care by nephrologists to their patients being treated with dialysis.     

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.     

Attitudes of Canadian nephrologists, family physicians and patients with kidney failure toward primary care delivery for chronic dialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Nephrologists have traditionally assumed responsibility for both nephrological and primary care health problems of their dialysis patients. However, given the increasing limitations of nephrology human resources, there is concern that traditional models may fall short of providing comprehensive care. METHODS: We studied this issue by distributing three different self-administered surveys to 361 members of the Canadian Society of Nephrology, 325 family physicians, and 163 chronic dialysis patients. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 61.3% for nephrologists, 51% for family physicians, and 90% for patients. More than 50% of Canadian nephrologists are spending approximately one-third of their time in primary care delivery. The majority of these nephrologists and family physicians agree that nephrologists should not be solely responsible for the primary care of patients on dialysis. Yet, both groups of physicians have concerns that family physicians do not have the knowledge/training and time to care for this complicated group of patients. The patients themselves have more confidence in the primary care that is delivered by their family physicians than by their nephrologists. Unfortunately, there is little communication between the two physician groups either between themselves or with their patients about the services that should be provided by their nephrologist or their family physician. CONCLUSION: Nephrologists and family physicians agree that more primary care for dialysis patients should be provided by family physicians. However, the lack of communication between physicians and patients may result in either a duplication or omission of services that are required by this patient population. Dialysis delivery systems in Canada must evolve to ensure that comprehensive chronic dialysis and primary care is provided to these patients through cooperation and communication with primary care physicians.     

Immunization in End‐Stage Renal Disease: Opportunity to Improve Outcomes

Infection is the second most common cause of death in patients with end‐stage renal disease (ESRD), following cardiovascular causes. Immunization is a fairly simple, but underutilized, strategy for prevention of infectious morbidity and mortality in patients with kidney failure. It is imperative for nephrologists and primary care providers to have an understanding of immunization as an essential component of preventive healthcare measures in this high‐risk population. Patients with ESRD represent a unique population due to their immunosuppressed state, dialysis‐related exposures and suboptimal response to routine vaccines. While the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) provides guidelines for vaccination of patients with renal disease against Hepatitis B, influenza and pneumococcal disease, the data on immunization against other commonly preventable infectious diseases are lacking. This article reviews the recent evidence on immunization in the ESRD population and synthesizes the related implications for maximizing prevention of infectious diseases in this high‐risk population.     

Renal replacement therapy in the elderly: medical, ethical, and psychosocial considerations

As patients over the age of 65 become the fastest growing segment of our treated end-stage renal disease (ESRD) population, nephrologists and allied healthcare workers who care for these patients must become well versed in the many issues specific to this group. Elderly patients contribute the greatest fraction to the incidence and prevalence of the United States ESRD population. Their life expectancy is greatly reduced compared with age-matched counterparts from the general population. Cardiac disease is the leading cause of death. Although renal transplantation remains the most successful form of renal replacement therapy, only a small fraction of elderly ESRD patients are transplanted. The renal research community has made great strides in improving patient outcomes on dialysis over the last decade in many areas; however, little attention has been focused on the elderly ESRD patient. The substantial mortality and comorbidity experienced by this population makes their management an ongoing challenge. Many unresolved issues remain for elderly ESRD patients in the timing of dialysis initiation, choice of dialytic therapy, use of renal transplantation, and management of cardiovascular disease. It is anticipated that future research in these areas will identify optimal treatment strategies for elderly ESRD patients starting on dialysis and improve patient outcomes.     

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.     

Principles of dialysis: special issues in women

Nephrologists are frequently responsible for the primary care of their female patients. As such, they must be aware of medical issues that are unique to women. Although many of the medical considerations are similar to those in women without renal disease, there are a number of special considerations unique to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. Women comprise a smaller proportion of the dialysis population and have better survival rates than men do. The improved survival is less marked than seen in the general population and may be function of differential susceptibility to disease processes, socio-cultural factors, or gender differences in acceptance or transplantation rates. A variety of factors are important in choosing dialysis modality including lifestyle issues and previous abdominal surgery. Women with ESRD are at high risk of both sexual and gonadal dysfunction, for which the latter may be treated with replacement hormones. Pregnancy is rare and requires an increase in the dose of dialysis and the care of a team of experienced physicians. Finally, awareness and implementation of routine health maintenance recommendations is essential in the care of female dialysis patients.     

Withholding and withdrawing dialysis: the role of physician specialty and education and patient functional status

Withholding and withdrawing dialysis are subjects of major concern to nephrologists, because both result in a significant number of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patient deaths. The medical literature on withholding dialysis is extremely limited, and that on withdrawing dialysis consists mainly of retrospective studies from the 1980s. The present study was conducted to identify ways to improve dialysis decision making by providing a current understanding of how decisions to withhold or withdraw dialysis are being made and by examining whether some patients who might benefit from dialysis are not being referred. In 1995, 22 of 27 (82%) nephrologists practicing in West Virginia agreed to participate in a year-long prospective study in which they completed forms on each patient from whom they withheld or withdrew dialysis. Seventy-six of a random sample of 214 (36%) primary care physicians returned questionnaires describing their practice experience in 1995 with patients with advanced chronic renal failure. The nephrologists withdrew dialysis from 60 of 822 (7%) patients. Academic nephrologists who had received education in the ethics and law of stopping dialysis withdrew it from a greater percentage of patients than those in private practice (12% v 6%; P = 0.009). Patients who were withdrawn more often resided in nursing homes (37% v 2%; P < 0.0001). Twenty-one patients (37%) lacked decision-making capacity at the time the decision was made to withdraw dialysis. Advance directives were available for 13 of the 21 (62%) patients: eight of the 10 treated by academic nephrologists and five of the 11 treated by private practice nephrologists. Academic nephrologists found advance directives to be helpful in decision making to withdraw dialysis of incapacitated patients more often than nephrologists in private practice (70% v 9%; P = 0.004). Nephrologists withheld dialysis from 25 of 357 (7%) ESRD patients compared with 42 of 193 (22%) withheld by primary care physicians (P < 0.001). In deciding not to refer a patient for a dialysis evaluation, 25% of primary care physicians did not consult a nephrologist; 60% cited age as a reason not to refer. These findings suggest that dialysis decision making might be improved by educating nephrologists about the ethics and law of withdrawing dialysis and about how to implement successfully advance care planning so that advance directives will be present and helpful when decisions need to be made for incapacitated dialysis patients. Education of primary care physicians about when to refer patients with chronic renal failure for a dialysis evaluation might also result in more referrals for patients who will benefit from dialysis.     

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.     

Factors influencing exercise participation by older adults requiring chronic hemodialysis: a qualitative study

Despite the recognized health and psychosocial benefits of exercise for older adults with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), exercise participation remains poor. Previous research has attributed low levels of exercise to patient-related factors such as lack of motivation and fear of adverse consequences. This qualitative study involving focus group discussions with hemodialysis patients, nephrology nurses, and family care providers explored specific motivators and barriers to exercise participation in older adults requiring hemodialysis. Nurse participants were chosen for the health care provider focus groups because their prolonged and sustained contact with hemodialysis patients during the dialysis treatment sessions positions them well to encourage and promote exercise. Motivators to exercise included patient aspirations to exercise and their experiences of improvements from exercising, as well as the formal incorporation of exercise into the overall dialysis treatment plan. Barriers to exercise included nurses’ lack of encouragement to exercise, transportation issues, and the use of exercise equipment that precludes participation by patients who recline during dialysis and inhibits exercise encouragement by nurses due to concerns of equipment-related injury. These findings support the need for a broader recognition of the systemic factors that may impede exercise participation by older adults requiring hemodialysis. A shift is required in the culture of ESRD treatment programs towards a wellness perspective that includes expectations of exercise encouragement by the health care team and participation by 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.     

Decision making for the initiation and termination of dialysis in patients with advanced cancer

Age is a risk factor for both cancer and end‐stage renal disease (ESRD). Newer cancer treatments are allowing patients to live longer with their cancer, the renal toxicity from the cancer itself or from the therapies that was used to treat the malignancy. Consequently, nephrologists will increasingly be asked to evaluate and counsel patients with ESRD and advanced cancer regarding the initiation of dialysis. Data on morbidity, mortality, and quality of life (QOL) outcomes in this population are sparse. Expectations regarding what dialysis can reasonably accomplish in this cohort can be unrealistically high among patients, their family members and the rest of the health care team. This article will discuss some results from the available studies on mortality and QOL outcomes in this cohort and advise the nephrologist about how to approach these challenging discussions.     

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.     

Outcomes research in dialysis

Worldwide, the number of patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) and the number of ESRD patients receiving renal replacement therapy is growing. In the United States the number of patients enrolled in the Medicare-funded ESRD program has grown substantially, from approximately 10000 beneficiaries in 1973 to 340261 as of December 31, 1999. United States has the highest incidence ESRD of 317 per million population. Despite the magnitude of resources committed to the treatment of ESRD and the substantial improvements in the quality of dialysis therapy, these patients continue to experience significant mortality and morbidity, and reduced quality of life. Moreover, 50% of dialysis patients have 3 or more comorbid conditions, the mean number of hospital days per year is approximately 14 per patient, and self reported quality of life is far lower in dialysis patients than in general population. The most desirable interventions are those that specifically target measurable global outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, and health care costs. Nevertheless, patient outcomes that have shown links with these global outcomes may also be appropriate targets for intervention. This article will briefly review the available literature to discuss the role of important clinical indicators on dialysis outcomes and their impact on continuing care of ESRD population.     

Palliative care in end-stage renal disease: focus on advance care planning, hospice referral, and bereavement

The components of palliative care in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) include pain and symptom management, advance care planning, psychosocial and spiritual support, and ethical issues in dialysis. End-of-life care is not synonymous with, but rather a subset of palliative care. Advance care planning occurs within the patient-family relationship and is a dynamic process that prepares for death, strengthens interpersonal relationships, and allows a patient to achieve control over his or her life. It is incumbent upon dialysis care providers to include advance care planning in overall care plans for their patients. Factors contributing to the failure of advance care planning in ESRD patients will be discussed, as will hospice and ESRD, and opportunities for bereavement programs.     

Screening and preventive health practices for the end-stage renal disease patient

The population of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients continues to grow and to age. The nephrologist often is the sole or principal physician responsible for the total management of these patients. In this role, the nephrologist must address issues of routine health maintenance. Screening tests and preventive care should be continued to detect, prevent, or minimize comorbid conditions that could affect quality of life or survival. Effective primary and secondary prevention requires understanding the principles of screening tests and their appropriate use. Screening and counseling procedures recommended for healthy adults should be continued, although certain screening tests may appropriately be discontinued if the expected survival is 5 years or less. Secondary prevention for cardiovascular disease is particularly important in ESRD patients, in whom accelerated atherosclerosis is often the cause of morbidity and death. Aggressive counseling in smoking cessation and in management of hyperlipidemia should be undertaken, in the hopes of limiting this common comorbidity.     

The Nephrologist as a Primary Care Provider for the Hemodialysis Patient

The role of nephrologists as de facto primary care providers (PCP) for dialysis patients is of increasing interest. We sought to determine the proportion of patients who rely on nephrologists for primary care and to identify demographic variables associated with this primary care responsibility. We reviewed the charts of 158 patients receiving hemodialysis at a suburban, freestanding, teaching hospital affiliated outpatient unit from December 1999 through January 2001. In addition, each patient was interviewed and completed a survey. Non-nephrologists were considered to be a patient’s PCP if there was chart, survey or interview evidence of such a relationship. Of the 158 patients, only 56 patients had a PCP. The nephrologist thus was the de facto PCP in 65% of hemodialysis patients, a responsibility that was 3.3-fold more likely for patients not enrolled in a health maintenance organization (HMO) or managed care organization (MCO). In the non-HMO/MCO group, patients with a PCP had been on dialysis for less time than those without a PCP [2.7 vs. 4.6 years (P=0.0006)]. Only 32% of patients on dialysis <1 year had nephrologists as de facto PCP vs. 71% of those on dialysis more than 1 year (P=0.0002). This association between time on dialysis and de facto use of nephrologists as PCP was not accounted for by the shorter time on dialysis of HMO/MCO enrollees. The extent to which the nephrologist fulfills the often unsought role as PCP needs further investigation.