Impact of Navigators on First Visit to a Transplant Center, Waitlisting, and Kidney Transplantation: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many patients with ESKD face barriers in completing the steps required to obtain a transplant. These eight sequential steps are medical suitability, interest in transplant, referral to a transplant center, first visit to center, transplant workup, successful candidate, waiting list or identify living donor, and receive transplant. This study sought to determine the effect of navigators on helping patients complete these steps. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Our study was a cluster randomized, controlled trial involving 40 hemodialysis facilities and four transplant centers in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2016. Four trained kidney transplant recipients met regularly with patients on hemodialysis at 20 intervention facilities, determined their step in the transplant process, and provided tailored information and assistance in completing that step and subsequent steps. Patients at 20 control facilities continued to receive usual care. Primary study outcomes were waiting list placement and receipt of a deceased or living donor transplant. An exploratory outcome was first visit to a transplant center. RESULTS: Before the trial, intervention (1041 patients) and control (836 patients) groups were similar in the proportions of patients who made a first visit to a transplant center, were placed on a waiting list, and received a deceased or living donor transplant. At the end of the trial, intervention and control groups were also similar in first visit (16.1% versus 13.8%; difference, 2.3%; 95% confidence interval, -0.8% to 5.5%), waitlisting (16.3% versus 13.8%; difference, 2.5%; 95% confidence interval, -1.2% to 6.1%), deceased donor transplantation (2.8% versus 2.2%; difference, 0.6%; 95% confidence interval, -0.8% to 2.1%), and living donor transplantation (1.2% versus 1.0%; difference, 0.1%; 95% confidence interval, -0.9% to 1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Use of trained kidney transplant recipients as navigators did not increase first visits to a transplant center, waiting list placement, and receipt of deceased or living donor transplants.

Comparison of the Availability and Cost of Foods Compatible With a Renal Diet Versus an Unrestricted Diet Using the Nutrition Environment Measures Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Hemodialysis patients' ability to access food that is both compatible with a renal diet and affordable is affected by the local food environment. Comparisons of the availability and cost of food items suitable for the renal diet versus a typical unrestricted diet were completed using the standard Nutrition Environment Measures Survey and a renal diet-modified Nutrition Environment Measures Survey. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Twelve grocery stores in Northeast Ohio. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Availability and cost of food items in 12 categories. RESULTS: The mean total number of food items available differed significantly (P ≤ .001) between the unrestricted diet (38.9 ± 4.5) and renal diet (32.2 ± 4.7). The mean total cost per serving did not differ significantly (P = 0.48) between the unrestricted diet ($5.67 ± 2.50) and renal diet ($5.76 ± 2.74). CONCLUSION: The availability of renal diet food items is significantly less than that of unrestricted diet food items, but there is no difference in the cost of items that are available in grocery stores. Further work is needed to determine how to improve the food environment for patients with chronic diseases.

Accuracy of dialysis medical records in determining patients' interest in and suitability for transplantation.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the accuracy of dialysis medical records in identifying patients' interest in and suitability for transplantation. STUDY DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 167 patients recruited from 23 hemodialysis facilities. INTERVENTION: Navigators met with intervention patients to provide transplant information and assistance. Control patients continued to receive usual care. OUTCOMES: Agreement at study initiation between medical records and (i) patient self-reported interest in transplantation and (ii) study assessments of medical suitability for transplant referral. MEASUREMENTS: Medical record assessments, self-reports, and study assessments of patient's interest in and suitability for transplantation. RESULTS: There was disagreement between medical records and patient self-reported interest in transplantation for 66 (40%) of the 167 study patients. In most of these cases, patients reported being more interested in transplantation than their medical records indicated. The study team determined that all 92 intervention patients were medically suitable for transplant referral. However, for 38 (41%) intervention patients, medical records indicated that they were not suitable. About two-thirds of these patients successfully moved forward in the transplant process. CONCLUSION: Dialysis medical records are frequently inaccurate in determining patient's interest in and suitability for transplantation.

Impact of navigators on completion of steps in the kidney transplant process: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many patients with ESRD, particularly minorities and women, face barriers in completing the steps required to obtain a transplant. These eight sequential steps are as follows: medical suitability, interest in transplant, referral to a transplant center, first visit to center, transplant workup, successful candidate, waiting list or identify living donor, and receive transplant. This study sought to determine the effect of navigators on completion of steps. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Cluster randomized, controlled trial at 23 Ohio hemodialysis facilities. One hundred sixty-seven patients were recruited between January 2009 and August 2009 and were followed for up to 24 months or until study end in February 2011. Trained kidney transplant recipients met monthly with intervention participants (n=92), determined their step in the transplant process, and provided tailored information and assistance in completing the step. Control participants (n=75) continued to receive usual care. The primary outcome was the number of transplant process steps completed. RESULTS: Starting step did not significantly differ between the two groups. By the end of the trial, intervention participants completed more than twice as many steps as control participants (3.5 versus 1.6 steps; difference, 1.9 steps; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.5 steps). The effect of the intervention on step completion was similar across race and sex subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Use of trained transplant recipients as navigators resulted in increased completion of transplant process steps.