Evaluation and outcomes of a 5-year assisted peritoneal dialysis program.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, Peritoneal Dialysis Assist (PDA) was implemented in British Columbia, Canada, as a pilot program to allow patients with physical, cognitive and social impairments to access an independent dialysis modality. This is a presentation of the usage and 5-year clinical outcomes of our provincial assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD) program. METHODS: Patients who utilised long-term or respite PDA services in British Columbia, Canada, from 2016 to 2021 were included in this program evaluation. Incident and prevalent patient numbers were characterised annually as well as indications for PDA and patient demographics both annually and over time. Outcomes of interest included death, transfer to haemodialysis, transplantation and cessation of the PDA program but retention on PD. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-two total patients received services through the PDA program. The percentage of PD patients supported by long-term PDA service has grown to 11.2% in the most recent year. Patients spend a median of 13.6 (95% CI: 11.0, 16.1) months on long-term PDA, prolonging overall patient duration on PD by a little over a year. Of the patients who exited the long-term PDA program, 73 (37.4%) were able to utilise the service until they died. CONCLUSION: PDA is an accessible, patient-centric service with clear and standardised referral criteria. Through the implementation of a local PDA program, patients have accessed PD and may have extended their PD life span, through avoidance of in-centre haemodialysis, by over 13 months during this 5-year study period. A significant proportion of patients on long-term PDA were able to use their preferred kidney replacement modality at home until they reached end of life.

Canadian Association of Paediatric Nephrologists COVID-19 Rapid Response: Home and In-Center Dialysis Guidance.

PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM: This article provides guidance on optimizing the management of pediatric patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) who will be or are being treated with any form of home or in-center dialysis during the COVID-19 pandemic. The goals are to provide the best possible care for pediatric patients with ESKD during the pandemic and ensure the health care team's safety. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: The core of these rapid guidelines is derived from the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) consensus recommendations for adult patients recently published in the Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease (CJKHD). We also consulted specific documents from other national and international agencies focused on pediatric kidney health. Additional information was obtained by formal review of the published academic literature relevant to pediatric home or in-center hemodialysis. METHODS: The Leadership of the Canadian Association of Paediatric Nephrologists (CAPN), which is affiliated with the CSN, solicited a team of clinicians and researchers with expertise in pediatric home and in-center dialysis. The goal was to adapt the guidelines recently adopted for Canadian adult dialysis patients for pediatric-specific settings. These included specific COVID-19-related themes that apply to dialysis in a Canadian environment, as determined by a group of senior renal leaders. Expert clinicians and nurses with deep expertise in pediatric home and in-center dialysis reviewed the revised pediatric guidelines. KEY FINDINGS: We identified 7 broad areas of home dialysis practice management that may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) peritoneal dialysis catheter placement, (2) home dialysis training, (3) home dialysis management, (4) personal protective equipment, (5) product delivery, (6) minimizing direct health care providers and patient contact, and (7) caregivers support in the community. In addition, we identified 8 broad areas of in-center dialysis practice management that may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) identification of patients with COVID-19, (2) hemodialysis of patients with confirmed COVID-19, (3) hemodialysis of patients not yet known to have COVID-19, (4) management of visitors to the dialysis unit, (5) handling COVID-19 testing of patients and staff, (6) safe practices during resuscitation procedures in a pandemic, (7) routine hemodialysis care, and (8) hemodialysis care under fixed dialysis resources. We make specific suggestions and recommendations for each of these areas. LIMITATIONS: At the time when we started this work, we knew that evidence on the topic of pediatric dialysis and COVID-19 would be severely limited, and our resources were also limited. We did not, therefore, do formal systematic review or meta-analysis. We did not evaluate our specific suggestions in the clinical environment. Thus, this article's advice and recommendations are primarily expert opinions and subject to the biases associated with this level of evidence. To expedite the publication of this work, we created a parallel review process that may not be as robust as standard arms' length peer-review processes. IMPLICATIONS: We intend these recommendations to help provide the best care possible for pediatric patients prescribed in-center or home dialysis during the COVID-19 pandemic, a time of altered priorities and reduced resources.

Quantifying Missed Opportunities for Recruitment to Home Dialysis Therapies.

BACKGROUND: Despite the recognized benefits of home therapies for patients and the health care system, most individuals with kidney failure in Canada continue to be initiated on in-center hemodialysis. To optimize recruitment to home therapies, there is a need for programs to better understand the extent to which potential candidates are not successfully initiated on these therapies. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to quantify missed opportunities to recruit patients to home therapies and explore where in the modality selection process this occurs. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: British Columbia, Canada. PATIENTS: All patients aged >18 years who started chronic dialysis in British Columbia between January 01, 2015, and December 31, 2017. The sample was further restricted to include patients who received at least 3 months of predialysis care. All patients were followed for a minimum of 12 months from the start of dialysis to capture any transition to home therapies. METHODS: Cases were defined as a "missed opportunity" if a patient had chosen a home therapy, or remained undecided about their preferred modality, and ultimately received in-center hemodialysis as their destination therapy. These cases were assessed for: (1) documentation of a contraindication to home therapies; and (2) the type of dialysis education received. Differences in characteristics among patients classified as an appropriate outcome or a missed opportunity were examined using Wilcoxon rank-sum test or χ2 test, as appropriate. RESULTS: Of the 1845 patients who started chronic dialysis during the study period, 635 (34%) were initiated on a home therapy. A total of 320 (17.3%) missed opportunities were identified, with 165 (8.9%) having initially chosen a home therapy and 155 (8.4%) being undecided about their preferred modality. Compared with patients who chose and initiated or transitioned to a home therapy, those identified as a missed opportunity tended to be older with a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease. A contraindication to both peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis was documented in 8 "missed opportunity" patients. General modality orientation was provided to most (71%) patients who had initially chosen a home therapy but who ultimately received in-center hemodialysis. These patients received less home therapy-specific education compared with patients who chose and subsequently started a home therapy (20% vs 35%, P < .001). LIMITATIONS: Contraindications to home therapies were potentially under-ascertained, and the nature of contraindications was not systematically captured. CONCLUSIONS: Even within a mature home therapy program, we discovered a substantial number of missed opportunities to recruit patients to home therapies. Better characterization of modality contraindications and enhanced education that is specific to home therapies may be of benefit. Mapping the recruitment pathway in this way can define the magnitude of missed opportunities and identify areas that could be optimized. This is to be encouraged, as even small incremental improvements in the uptake of home therapies could lead to better patient outcomes and contribute to significant cost savings for the health care system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable as this was a qualitative study.

CONTEXTE: Les avantages de la dialyse à domicile pour les patients et le système de santé sont reconnus. Pourtant, la majorité des personnes atteintes d'insuffisance rénale au Canada continue de recevoir des traitements d'hémodialyse en centre. Pour recruter davantage de patients sur les thérapies à domicile, il est nécessaire d'instaurer des programmes qui permettent d'établir dans quelle mesure les candidats potentiels n'y sont pas initiés avec succès. OBJECTIF: Nous souhaitions quantifier les occasions manquées de recruter des patients pour les modalités à domicile et déterminer où ces occasions manquées se produisent dans le processus de sélection de la modalité. CONCEPTION: Étude de cohorte rétrospective. CADRE: Colombie-Britannique (Canada). SUJETS: Tous les adultes ayant amorcé des traitements de dialyse chronique en Colombie-Britannique entre le 1er janvier 2015 et le 31 décembre 2017. L'échantillon a été davantage restreint pour inclure les patients ayant reçu au moins trois mois de soins prédialyse. Le suivi s'est étalé sur un minimum de douze mois à compter de l'amorce de la dialyse afin de capter toute transition vers une modalité à domicile. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les cas ont été définis comme une « occasion manquée ¼ si la personne avait d'emblée choisi une modalité à domicile ou si elle était demeurée indécise quant à sa modalité préférée et avait finalement reçu des traitements d'hémodialyse en centre de façon permanente. Les occasions manquées ont été examinées pour: i) une contre-indication aux thérapies à domicile et; ii) le type de formation reçue pour la dialyse. L'évaluation des différences dans les caractéristiques des patients, selon que leur cas était classé comme un résultat favorable ou une occasion manquée, a été effectuée à l'aide du test de Wilcoxon ou du test du Chi-carré. RÉSULTATS: Des 1 845 patients ayant débuté des traitements de dialyse chronique au cours de la période étudiée, 635 (34 %) avaient amorcé la dialyse à domicile. En tout, 320 cas (17,3 %) ont été classés comme « occasions manquées ¼, soit 165 patients (8,9 %) ayant d'emblée choisi une thérapie à domicile et 155 (8,4 %) indécis quant à leur modalité préférée. Comparativement aux patients qui avaient choisi et amorcé un traitement à domicile ou qui avaient fait une transition (hémodialyse en centre vers une modalité à domicile), les patients classés « occasion manquée ¼ tendaient à être plus âgés avec une prévalence plus élevée de maladies cardiovasculaires. Une contre-indication à la fois à la dialyse péritonéale et à l'hémodialyse à domicile était documentée pour huit patients classés « occasion manquée ¼. Une orientation générale sur la modalité avait été fournie à la majorité des patients (71 %) qui avaient initialement choisi une thérapie à domicile, mais qui avaient finalement reçu une hémodialyse en centre. Ces patients avaient reçu moins d'information spécifique aux modalités pratiquées à domicile que les patients qui avaient d'emblée choisi et poursuivi leurs traitements à domicile (20 % contre 35 %, p < 0,001). LIMITES: Les contre-indications aux modalités à domicile pourraient avoir été sous-évaluées et leur nature n'était pas systématiquement prise en compte. CONCLUSION: Un nombre significatif d'occasions manquées de recruter des patients pour les modalités de dialyse à domicile a été observé, bien que le programme étudié soit solidement établi. Une meilleure caractérisation des contre-indications à ces modalités et davantage de formation spécifique à ces thérapies pourraient s'avérer bénéfiques. De plus, une cartographie du processus de recrutement pourrait contribuer à mieux définir l'ampleur des occasions manquées et à cerner les domaines susceptibles d'être optimisés. Cette démarche est à encourager, car toute amélioration progressive dans l'adoption des thérapies à domicile, aussi infime soit-elle, est susceptible d'améliorer les résultats des patients et de générer des économies importantes pour le système de santé. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'ESSAI: Sans objet, il s'agit d'une étude qualitative.

Canadian Society of Nephrology COVID-19 Rapid Response Team Home Dialysis Recommendations.

PURPOSE OF PROGRAM: This paper will provide guidance on how to best manage patients with end-stage kidney disease who will be or are being treated with home dialysis during the COVID-19 pandemic. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Program-specific documents, pre-existing, and related to COVID-19; documents from national and international kidney agencies; national and international webinars, including webinars that we hosted for input and feedback; with additional information from formal and informal review of published academic literature. METHODS: Members of the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) Board of Directors solicited a team of clinicians and administrators with expertise in home dialysis. Specific COVID-19-related themes in home dialysis were determined by the Canadian senior renal leaders community of practice, a group compromising medical and administrative leaders of provincial and health authority renal programs. We then developed consensus-based recommendations virtually by the CSN work-group with input from ethicists with nephrology training. The recommendations were further reviewed by community nephrologists and over a CSN-sponsored webinar, attended by 225 kidney health care professionals, for further peer input. The final consensus recommendations also incorporated review by the editors at the Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease (CJKHD). KEY FINDINGS: We identified 7 broad areas of home dialysis practice management that may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) peritoneal dialysis catheter placement, (2) home dialysis training, (3) home dialysis management, (4) personal protective equipment, (5) product delivery, (6) minimizing direct health care provider and patient contact, and (7) assisted peritoneal dialysis in the community. We make specific suggestions and recommendations for each of these areas. LIMITATIONS: This suggestions and recommendations in this paper are expert opinion, and subject to the biases associated with this level of evidence. To expedite the publication of this work, a parallel review process was created that may not be as robust as standard arms' length peer-review processes. IMPLICATIONS: These recommendations are intended to provide the best care possible during a time of altered priorities and reduced resources.

Evaluation of a 12-Month Pilot of Long-Term and Temporary Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis.

♦ BACKGROUND: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is challenging for patients with functional limitations, and assisted PD can support these patients, but previous reports of assisted PD have not examined the role of temporary assisted PD and had difficulty identifying adequate comparator cohorts. ♦ METHODS: Peritoneal Dialysis Assist (PDA), a 12-month pilot of long-term and temporary assisted PD was completed in multiple PD centers in British Columbia, Canada. Continuous cycler PD (CCPD) patients were identified for PDA by standardized criteria, and service could be long-term or temporary/respite. The PDA program provided daily assistance with cycler dismantle and setup, but patients remained responsible for cycler connections and treatment decisions. Outcomes were compared against both the general CCPD population and patients who met PDA criteria but were not enrolled (PDA-eligible). ♦ RESULTS: Fifty-three PDA patients had an 88% 1-year death- and transplant-censored technique survival that was similar to the general CCPD cohort (84%) and PDA-eligible cohort (86%). The PDA cohort had lower peritonitis rates (0.18 episodes/patient-year vs 0.22 and 0.36, respectively), but higher hospitalization (55% vs 34% and 35%, respectively). Long-term PDA cost approximately CDN$15,000/year in addition to existing dialysis costs. A total of 8/11 respite PDA patients (73%) returned to self-care PD after a median PDA use of 29 days, which costs $1,250/patient. ♦ CONCLUSIONS: Peritoneal Dialysis Assist provides effective support to functionally-limited CCPD patients and yields acceptable clinical outcomes. The program costs less than transfer to HD or long-term care, which represents cost minimization for failing self-care PD patients. Respite PDA provides effective temporary support; most patients returned to self-care PD and service was cost-effective compared with alternatives of hospitalization or transfer to HD.

Implementing a home haemodialysis programme without adversely affecting a peritoneal dialysis programme.

BACKGROUND: As the population with stage 5 CKD grows, the associated costs of providing dialysis care increase. Due to the high costs of these therapies, home haemodialysis is enjoying a renaissance in many jurisdictions. However, concerns persist as to whether home haemodialysis programmes grow at the expense of other home therapies such as peritoneal dialysis. This study attempts to look at the impact of a new home haemodialysis programme on an existing peritoneal dialysis programme in the province of British Columbia. METHODS: Using the provincial renal database in British Columbia (PROMIS), all patients receiving dialysis were tracked over the years preceding the implementation of a home haemodialysis programme and following its implementation. Rate of growth by specific dialysis modality (hospital haemodialysis, community haemodialysis, home haemodialysis, and peritoneal dialysis) were tracked. RESULTS: When comparing the provincial growth rates in the peritoneal dialysis programme, using the 4 years before and following the introduction of the home haemodialysis programme, they were unchanged both annually (7.84% versus 7.34%) and overall (25.27% versus 23.62%). The growth within the home haemodialysis programme appears to have come from the community haemodialysis programme (annual growth rate 12.28% versus 5.87%) and in-hospital haemodialysis (annual growth rate 4.61% versus 1.3%). Incident rates of dialysis were similar both prior to and following the introduction of the home haemodialysis programme.Finally, only 6.4% of the total patients entering the home haemodialysis programme had discontinued peritoneal dialysis within the 6 months preceding home haemodialysis training, indicating a low frequency of movement from peritoneal dialysis to home haemodialysis. CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of a home haemodialysis programme can be done at a provincial level without having an adverse impact on the growth rate of existing peritoneal dialysis programmes.