Prospective monitoring of after-hours nursing and technologist support calls to a regional Canadian home hemodialysis program.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing renal care providers offer home hemodialysis (HD) as a modality choice. There is considerable variation in the provision of after-hours on-call support for self-dialyzing patients and no literature describing the utility of this service. In this prospective, observational study we sought to monitor and classify the number and nature of interactions between home patients and our on-call nurses and technologists, and enumerate the number of adverse events averted by the availability of on-call staff. METHODS: Our home HD unit provided 24-hour on-call patient support and during a 4-month period in 2012, we prospectively monitored all patient calls to this service. The nature of the calls was logged as nursing-related vs. technical. Call outcomes were classified according to whether patients were able to initiate/resume their treatments or whether additional interventions were required. FINDINGS: During this period, our program cared for 58 home HD patients. Nurses fielded 172 calls and dealt with 239 issues. One hundred nine (46%) were clinical issues including 5 (2%) of a serious nature involving potential harm; 67 (28%) related to machine setup or alarms, 36 (15%) required a technologist to resolve, and 27 (11%) were deemed non-urgent. One hundred six issues were directed to technologists in 99 calls. Issues pertained to machine malfunction (45 calls-43%), machine set-up and alarms (25 calls-24%), or the water system (24 calls-23%). Only 12 calls (11.3%) were not of a technical nature. Nursing and technologist support allowed patients to initiate or continue their treatment 75% and 71% of the time, respectively. DISCUSSION: Home HD on-call services provide patients support to successfully continue their dialysis treatments by troubleshooting clinical and technical aspects of dialysis and by averting potential adverse events.

Technique Failure in a Multicenter Canadian Home Hemodialysis Cohort.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Increasing uptake of home hemodialysis (HD) has led to interest in characteristics that predict discontinuation of home HD therapy for reasons other than death or transplantation. Recent reports of practice pattern variability led to the hypothesis that there are patient- and center-specific factors that influence these discontinuations. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Incident home HD patients at 7 centers in Canada between 2000 and 2010. PREDICTOR: Treatment center, case-mix, and process-of-care variables. OUTCOMES: Technique failure (defined as discontinuation of home HD therapy for any reason other than training failure, death, or transplantation) and mortality. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Regression modeling of technique failure using Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for treatment center and modifiable and nonmodifiable patient-level variables, censored for death and transplantation. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 579 patients. Mean age was 49.9±14.1 years, 74% were of European ancestry, median dialysis vintage was 1.9 (IQR, 0.6-5.2) years, and 68% used an arteriovenous access. Mean duration of dialysis was 31.2±12.6 hours per week. Unadjusted 1- and 2-year technique survival and overall survival were 90% and 83% and 94% and 87%, respectively. Treating center was a strong predictor of technique failure and mortality, with HRs ranging from 0.37 to 5.11 for technique failure (1 of 6 centers with P<0.05 relative to the reference) and 0.17 to 8.73 for mortality (3 of 6 centers with P<0.05 relative to the reference). With baseline adjustment for center, only older age and more than 3 treatments per week remained significant predictors of technique failure, while no individual-level variables remained as significant predictors of survival. LIMITATIONS: Limited statistical power. CONCLUSIONS: Home HD treating centers may influence technique failure and patient mortality independent of case-mix. The relationship between processes of care and patient outcomes requires further investigation.

Quality Assurance Audit of Technique Failure and 90-Day Mortality after Program Discharge in a Canadian Home Hemodialysis Program.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Little is known about patients exiting home hemodialysis. We sought to characterize the reasons, clinical characteristics, and pre-exit health care team interactions of patients on home hemodialysis who died or underwent modality conversion (negative disposition) compared with prevalent patients and those who were transplanted (positive disposition). DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We conducted an audit of all consecutive patients incident to home hemodialysis from January of 2010 to December of 2014 as part of ongoing quality assurance. Records were reviewed for the 6 months before exit, and vital statistics were assessed up to 90 days postexit. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients completed training; 25 (27%) received a transplant, 11 (12%) died, and 23 (25%) were transferred to in-center hemodialysis. Compared with the positive disposition group, patients in the negative disposition group had a longer mean dialysis vintage (3.15 [SD=4.98] versus 1.06 [SD=1.16] years; P=0.003) and were performing conventional versus a more intensive hemodialysis prescription (23 of 34 versus 23 of 60; P<0.01). In the 6 months before exit, the negative disposition group had significantly more in-center respite dialysis sessions, had more and longer hospitalizations, and required more on-call care team support in terms of phone calls and drop-in visits (each P<0.05). The most common reason for modality conversion was medical instability in 15 of 23 (65%) followed by caregiver or care partner burnout in three of 23 (13%) each. The 90-day mortality among patients undergoing modality conversion was 26%. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 6-year period, approximately one third of patients exited the program due to death or modality conversion. Patients who die or transfer to another modality have significantly higher health care resource utilization (e.g., hospitalization, respite treatments, nursing time, etc.).

Estimating patient-borne water and electricity costs in home hemodialysis: a simulation.

BACKGROUND: Home hemodialysis is associated with lower costs to the health care system compared with conventional facility-based hemodialysis because of lower staffing and overhead costs, and by transferring the treatment cost of utilities (water and power) to the patient. The purpose of this study was to determine the utility costs of home hemodialysis and create a formula such that patients and renal programs can estimate the annual patient-borne costs involved with this type of treatment. METHODS: Seven common combinations of treatment duration and dialysate flows were replicated 5 times using various combinations of home hemodialysis and reverse osmosis machines. Real-time utility (electricity and water) consumption was monitored during these simulations. A generic formula was developed to allow patients and programs to calculate a more precise estimate of utility costs based on individual combinations of dialysis intensity, frequency and utility costs unique to any patient. RESULTS: Using typical 2014 utility costs for Edmonton, the most expensive prescription was for nocturnal home hemodialysis (8 h at 300 mL/min, 6 d/wk), which resulted in a utility cost of $1269 per year; the least expensive prescription was for conventional home hemodialysis (4 h at 500 mL/min, 3 d/wk), which cost $420 per year. Water consumption makes up most of this expense, with electricity accounting for only 12% of the cost. INTERPRETATION: We show that a substantial cost burden is transferred to the patient on home hemodialysis, which would otherwise be borne by the renal program.

Procedure-related serious adverse events among home hemodialysis patients: a quality assurance perspective.

BACKGROUND: There has been resurgent interest in home hemodialysis (HD) in recent years because of the reported benefits and its excellent safety record. However, the potential for adverse events, including potentially catastrophic ones, exists when patients are performing HD in their homes without supervision. There is a lack of literature on this important topic. STUDY DESIGN: Quality improvement report. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: We present the experience of 2 adult home HD programs in Canada from 2001 to 2012, including a total of 190 patients and approximately 500 patient-years of treatments. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN: We retrospectively reviewed all life-threatening adverse events occurring in our programs and re-examined our approach to patient training, retraining, and safety monitoring. RESULTS: We report 1 death and 6 potentially fatal adverse events, yielding a crude rate of 0.060 events/1,000 dialysis treatments. Six of 7 events involved significant blood loss (including 1 exsanguination); 5 of 7 events involved human error with lapses in protocol adherence. Because such events are rare, evaluation of specific intervention strategies will require much longer follow-up. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective identification of cases. A specific quality improvement initiative was not undertaken. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening adverse events in home HD are uncommon; however, when one does occur, this should prompt review of home HD-related policies and procedures to make this therapy even safer.

Programmatic variation in home hemodialysis in Canada: results from a nationwide survey of practice patterns.

BACKGROUND: Over 40% of patients with end stage renal disease in the United States were treated with home hemodialysis (HHD) in the early 1970's. However, this number declined rapidly over the ensuing decades so that the overwhelming majority of patients were treated in-centre 3 times per week on a 3-4 hour schedule. Poor outcomes for patients treated in this fashion led to a renewed interest in home hemodialysis, with more intensive dialysis schedules including short daily (SDHD) and nocturnal (NHD). The relative infancy of these treatment schedules means that there is a paucity of data on 'how to do it'. OBJECTIVE: We undertook a systematic survey of home hemodialysis programs in Canada to describe current practice patterns. DESIGN: Development and deployment of a qualitative survey instrument. SETTING: Community and academic HHD programs in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians, nurses and technologists. MEASUREMENTS: Programmatic approaches to patient selection, delivery of dialysis, human resources available, and follow up. METHODS: We developed the survey instrument in three phases. A focus group of Canadian nephrologists with expertise in NHD or SDHD discussed the scope the study and wrote questions on 11 domains. Three nephrologists familiar with all aspects of HHD delivery reviewed this for content validity, followed by further feedback from the whole group. Multidisciplinary teams at three sites pretested the survey and further suggestions were incorporated. In July 2010 we distributed the survey electronically to all renal programs known to offer HHD according to the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry. We compiled the survey results using qualitative and quantitative methods, as appropriate. RESULTS: Of the academic and community programs that were invited to participate, 80% and 63%, respectively, completed the survey. We observed wide variation in programmatic approaches to patient recruitment, human resources, equipment, water, vascular access, patient training, dialysis prescription, home requirements, patient follow up, medications, and the approach to non-adherent patients. LIMITATIONS: Cross-sectional survey, unable to link variation to outcomes. Competition for patients between HHD and home peritoneal dialysis means that case mix for HHD may also vary between centres. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation between programs in all domains of HHD delivery in Canada. We plan further study of the extent to which differences in approach are related to outcomes.

PROBLÉMATIQUE: Au début des années 70, plus de 40% des patients en insuffisance rénale terminale aux États-Unis étaient traités par hémodialyse à domicile (HDD). Cette proportion a décliné rapidement au cours des décennies suivantes, de sorte que le mode de suppléance pour la majorité des patients est maintenant l'hémodialyse 3 fois par semaine à raison de 3 à 4 heures par séance. Les mauvais résultats obtenus avec cette méthode ont renouvelé l'intérêt pour l'HDD, notamment pour les dialyses intensives incluant la dialyse quotidienne courte (DQC) et l'hémodialyse nocturne (HDN). Étant donné leur nouveauté, il y a peu de données sur les façons de faire avec ces modes de suppléance. OBJECTIF: Afin de décrire les pratiques actuelles, nous avons réalisé un questionnaire systématique auprès des programmes d'HDD au Canada. DESIGN: Développement et déploiement d'un outil qualitatif. CADRE: Programmes d'HDD académiques et communautaires au Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Médecins, infirmières et technologues. VARIABLES MESURÉES: Approches pour la sélection des patients, le mode de suppléance, les ressources humaines disponibles et le mode de suivi pour chaque programme. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Nous avons développé un outil en trois phases. Un groupe de discussion composé de néphrologues canadiens ayant une expertise en DQC ou HDN ont échangé sur le contenu de l'étude et ont rédigé des questions sur 11 domaines. Trois néphrologues familiers avec tous les aspects de l'HDD ont révisé la validité des questions, puis ont demandé un nouvel avis à tout le groupe de discussion. Des équipes multidisciplinaires provenant de trois sites ont ensuite évalué le questionnaire et ont apporté des suggestions. En juillet 2010, le questionnaire a été distribué électroniquement à tous les programmes qui offrent l'HDD d'après le Registre canadien des insuffisances et des transplantations d'organes. Les résultats ont été compilés au moyen de méthodes qualitatives ou quantitatives, le cas échéant. RÉSULTATS: 80% des centres académiques et 63% des centres communautaires invités ont répondu au questionnaire. Nous avons observé des variations importantes entre les programmes quant au recrutement des patients, aux ressources humaines, à l'équipement, à l'eau, aux accès vasculaires, à l'entraînement des patients, à la prescription de dialyse, aux exigences du domicile, au suivi des patients, à la médication et à l'approche face aux patients non-adhérents. LIMITATIONS: Étude transversale, incapacité d'associer les variations aux issues cliniques. La compétition entre l'HDD et la dialyse péritonéale pour le recrutement des patients entraîne peut-être une variabilité entre les centres dans la composition des groupes de patients en HDD. CONCLUSIONS: Il y a de grandes variations entre les programmes dans tous les domaines concernant l'HDD au Canada. Nous planifions d'étudier dans le futur jusqu'à quel point ces différences sont reliées aux issues cliniques.

Accessing health services while living with HIV: intersections of stigma.

AIDS stigma has serious consequences. This study explored those practices within health-care organizations that persons with HIV perceive as stigmatizing. It used an exploratory, descriptive design using a participatory action research approach. Interviews and focus groups were conducted with 16 Aboriginal and 17 non-Aboriginal persons living with HIV as well as with 27 health-care providers. The AIDS stigma perceived by many participants often intersected with other forms of stigma, related to behaviour, culture, gender, sexual orientation, or social class. In addition, policies at the organizational level contributed to AIDS stigma and at times intersected with stigma at the individual level. Participants' experiences of stigma and discrimination were shaped by the organizational policies (universal precautions, models of care) and design (physical layout) under which care was provided. Several paradoxes associated with secrecy, health-care settings, and the layering of stigma emerged in the reported experiences.