Conservative kidney management and kidney supportive care: core components of integrated care for people with kidney failure.

Integrated kidney care requires synergistic linkage between preventative care for people at risk for chronic kidney disease and health services providing care for people with kidney disease, ensuring holistic and coordinated care as people transition between acute and chronic kidney disease and the 3 modalities of kidney failure management: conservative kidney management, transplantation, and dialysis. People with kidney failure have many supportive care needs throughout their illness, regardless of treatment modality. Kidney supportive care is therefore a vital part of this integrated framework, but is nonexistent, poorly developed, and/or poorly integrated with kidney care in many settings, especially in low- and middle-income countries. To address this, the International Society of Nephrology has (i) coordinated the development of consensus definitions of conservative kidney management and kidney supportive care to promote international understanding and awareness of these active treatments; and (ii) identified key considerations for the development and expansion of conservative kidney management and kidney supportive care programs, especially in low resource settings, where access to kidney replacement therapy is restricted or not available. This article presents the definitions for conservative kidney management and kidney supportive care; describes their core components with some illustrative examples to highlight key points; and describes some of the additional considerations for delivering conservative kidney management and kidney supportive care in low resource settings.

Mixed-methods research in nephrology.

Mixed-methods research involves the mixing of at least 1 qualitative and 1 quantitative method in the same research project or set of related projects. Combined use of qualitative and quantitative research methods in nephrology has increased over the last 10 years. In this review, we aim to advance the understanding of mixed-methods research within the kidney community. Qualitative and quantitative techniques provide different but noncompeting representations of what exists in the world; findings from qualitative research do not generalize to a large population, whereas those from quantitative research may not apply to individuals within the diverse and heterogeneous larger population. Mixed-methods research combines these complementary representations, allowing the strengths of each method to be combined and the strengths of 1 method to address the limitations of the other. Mixed-methods approaches can be used to: (i) gain a more complete understanding of a research problem, (ii) explain initial results from one method with results from another, (iii) generate instruments, for example, survey tools and interventions, (iv) evaluate services, and (v) optimize clinical trial design and delivery. There are 3 core mixed-methods designs: explanatory sequential, exploratory sequential, and convergent parallel, which can be combined. We discuss each design in turn before discussing analysis and integration of findings from the different methods. We provide case studies that illustrate the application of these study designs to kidney research questions. We briefly discuss mixed-methods systematic reviews and evidence synthesis before finally highlighting guidance on how to appraise published mixed-methods research.

Quality assuring early dialysis care: evaluating rates of death and recovery within 90 days of first dialysis using the UK Renal Registry.

Background: Kidney disease registries typically report populations incident to kidney replacement therapy (KRT) after excluding reversible disease. Registry-based audit and quality assurance is thus based on populations depleted of those with the highest early mortality. It is now mandatory for UK kidney units to report all recipients of dialysis, both acute and chronic. This work presents 90-day survival and recovery outcomes for all reported adults. Methods: Seventy adult centres reporting to the UK Renal Registry were included. Those assessed as underreporting death and recovery were excluded. Survival was evaluated using a Kaplan-Meier estimator. Cox regression was used to describe hazard ratios (HRs) for age, sex and acute/chronic dialysis coding on day 1. Analysis of all-cause 90-day mortality with recovery as a competing risk is presented. Results: Twenty-four centres were assessed as underreporting, with rates of death/recovery below the 99.7th centile. Of 5784 dialysis starters in the remaining 46 centres, 2163 (37.4%) were coded as receiving acute dialysis on day 1. Ninety days after starting, 3860 (66.7%) of all starters were receiving KRT, 1157 (20.0%) were alive having stopped, 716 (12.4%) were dead and 51 (0.9%) were lost to follow-up. Mortality was higher among those coded as receiving acute dialysis on day 1 (HR 4.88, P < 0.001). The sub-HR for recovery among those coded as receiving acute compared with chronic dialysis was 56.14 (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Death and recovery rates are substantially higher than reported in conventional incident populations. This work highlights a vulnerable subgroup of patients largely overlooked by most national quality assurance systems.