Hemodialysis catheter care strategies: a cluster-randomized quality improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of central venous catheters (CVCs) for hemodialysis remains high and, despite infection-control protocols, predisposes to bloodstream infections (BSIs). STUDY DESIGN: Stratified, cluster-randomized, quality improvement initiative. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: All in-center patients with a CVC within 211 facility pairs matched by region, facility size, and rate of positive blood cultures (January to March 2011) at Fresenius Medical Care, North America. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN: Incorporate the use of 2% chlorhexidine with 70% alcohol swab sticks for exit-site care and 70% alcohol pads to perform "scrub the hubs" in dialysis-related CVC care procedures compared to usual care. OUTCOME: The primary outcome was positive blood cultures for estimating BSI rates. MEASUREMENTS: Comparison of 3-month baseline period from April 1 to June 30 and follow-up period from August 1 to October 30, 2011. RESULTS: Baseline BSI rates were similar (0.85 vs 0.86/1,000 CVC-days), but follow-up rates differed at 0.81/1,000 CVC-days in intervention facilities versus 1.04/1,000 CVC-days in controls (P = 0.02). Intravenous antibiotic starts during the follow-up period also were lower, at 2.53/1,000 CVC-days versus 3.15/1,000 CVC-days in controls (P < 0.001). Cluster-adjusted Poisson regression confirmed 21%-22% reductions in both (P < 0.001). Extended follow-up for 3 successive quarters demonstrated a sustained reduction of bacteremia rates for patients in intervention facilities, at 0.50/1,000 CVC-days (41% reduction; P < 0.001). Hospitalizations due to sepsis during 1-year extended follow-up were 0.19/1,000 CVC-days (0.069/CVC-year) versus 0.26/1,000 CVC-days (0.095/CVC-year) in controls (∼27% difference; P < 0.05). LIMITATIONS: Inability to capture results from blood cultures sent to external laboratories, underestimation of sepsis-specific hospitalizations, and potential crossover adoption of the intervention protocol in control facilities. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the new catheter care procedure (consistent with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations) resulted in a 20% lower rate of BSIs and intravenous antibiotic starts, which were sustained over time and associated with a lower rate of hospitalizations due to sepsis.

Learning why patients with central venous catheters resist permanent access placement.

Central venous catheters (CVCs) are a well-known risk to patients on hemodialysis due to their higher morbidity and mortality compared to fistulas or grafts. One factor in the prevalence of CVCs is patients eligible for permanent access who refuse referral and permanent access placement. Objectives of this study were to identify reasons patients resist permanent access placement and develop potential strategies for intervention. A survey was distributed to Fresenius Medical Care North America (FMCNA) outpatient dialysis facilities (approximately 1600 facilities) requesting voluntary participation in documenting reasons given by patients for resisting permanent access placement. From the patient survey results, responses were collected and ranked from most frequent response to least frequent response. A collaborative workgroup of nephrology nurses and social workers reviewed the survey results. The patient survey provided 1573 responses. The three most frequently provided reasons were 1) a previous negative surgical experience, 2) having a permanent access placed in the past that did not work, and 3) cannulation fear and/or pain concerns. The workgroup identified best practices from clinics with low CVC rates and reviewed professional literature as a guide for development of potential strategies for intervention by the nephrology nurses and interdisciplinary team. Using a patient survey as a means to learn reasons why patients resist permanent access placement can be of value to the healthcare team in the development of potential strategies for interventions to reduce CVC utilization and thereby improve patient outcomes.

Validation of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services algorithm for eligibility for dialysis.

The Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) has recently revised their end-stage renal disease (ESRD) Medical Evidence Report, Medicare Entitlement, and Patient Registration CMS 2728 Form. The modified algorithm calls for the use of formulae to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR). The new criterion is defined as estimated GFR of less than 20 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). GFR is either estimated by Schwartz formula (C(SCH)) in children or Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula (C(MDRD)) in adults. The purpose of this communication is to test the validity of the new CMS GFR algorithm in detecting children who need renal replacement therapy. We evaluated two cohorts of children. Group I included single-center data from 626 (125)I-iothalamate clearance studies (C(IO)) that were compared with the simultaneous estimation of GFR by C(SCH). Group II included data on 659 children from the patient incidence registry obtained from the ESRD Network of Texas between February 1996 and October 2003. In group I there were 76 children (76 C(IO)) with C(SCH) less than 20 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) of whom 50 (67%) had C(IO) less than 15 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). Of children with C(IO) less than 15 ml/min per 1.73 m(2), 62% had a C(SCH) less than 20 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). The ability of C(SCH) greater than 20 ml/min per 1.73 m(2 ) to predict C(IO) greater than 15 ml/min per 1.73 m(2 )(negative predictive value) is 0.95. The number of children who were started on dialysis in Texas within the study period was 659 (group II). The mean C(SCH)+/-SD was 10.8+/-7.7 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). Of the patients who were initiated on dialysis, 94% had C(SCH) less than 20 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). The results were sustained when race, gender, age range, and type of diagnosis were considered. The new CMS algorithm provides a good negative predictive estimate of GFR less than 15 ml/min per 1.73 m(2).