Dataset Information

Transplant Center Patient Navigator and Access to Transplantation among High-Risk Population: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Barriers exist in access to kidney transplantation, where minority and patients with low socioeconomic status are less likely to complete transplant evaluation. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a transplant center-based patient navigator in helping patients at high risk of dropping out of the transplant evaluation process access the kidney transplant waiting list. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS & MEASUREMENTS:We conducted a randomized, controlled trial of 401 patients (n=196 intervention and n=205 control) referred for kidney transplant evaluation (January 2013 to August 2014; followed through May 2016) at a single center. A trained navigator assisted intervention participants from referral to waitlisting decision to increase waitlisting (primary outcome) and decrease time from referral to waitlisting (secondary outcome). Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine differences in waitlisting between intervention and control patients. RESULTS:At study end, waitlisting was not significantly different among intervention (32%) versus control (26%) patients overall (P=0.17), and time from referral to waitlisting was 126 days longer for intervention patients. However, the effectiveness of the navigator varied from early (<500 days from referral) to late (?500 days) follow-up. Although no difference in waitlisting was observed among intervention (50%) versus control (50%) patients in the early period (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.53), intervention patients were 3.3 times more likely to be waitlisted after 500 days (75% versus 25%; hazard ratio, 3.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.20 to 9.12). There were no significant differences in intervention versus control patients who started evaluation (85% versus 79%; P=0.11) or completed evaluation (58% versus 51%; P=0.14); however, intervention patients had more living donor inquiries (18% versus 10%; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS:A transplant center-based navigator targeting disadvantaged patients improved waitlisting but not until after 500 days of follow-up. However, the absolute effect was relatively small.

SUBMITTER: Basu M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5968906 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Transplant Center Patient Navigator and Access to Transplantation among High-Risk Population: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Basu Mohua M Petgrave-Nelson Lisa L Smith Kayla D KD Perryman Jennie P JP Clark Kevin K Pastan Stephen O SO Pearson Thomas C TC Larsen Christian P CP Paul Sudeshna S Patzer Rachel E RE

Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN 20180326 4

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Barriers exist in access to kidney transplantation, where minority and patients with low socioeconomic status are less likely to complete transplant evaluation. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a transplant center-based patient navigator in helping patients at high risk of dropping out of the transplant evaluation process access the kidney transplant waiting list.<h4>Design, setting, participants & measurements</h4>We conducted a ran ...[more]

PMID: 29581107

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence-based interventions to reduce hospital readmissions may not generalize to resource-constrained safety-net hospitals. OBJECTIVE:To determine if an intervention by patient navigators (PNs), hospital-based Community Health Workers, reduces readmissions among high risk, low socioeconomic status patients. DESIGN:Randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS:General medicine inpatients having at least one of the following readmission risk factors: (1) age??60 years, (2) any in-network inpatient admission within the past 6 months, (3) length of stay??3 days, (4) admission diagnosis of heart failure, or (5) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The analytic sample included 585 intervention patients and 925 controls. INTERVENTIONS:PNs provided coaching and assistance in navigating the transition from hospital to home through hospital visits and weekly telephone outreach, supporting patients for 30 days post-discharge with discharge preparation, medication management, scheduling of follow-up appointments, communication with primary care, and symptom management. MAIN MEASURES:The primary outcome was in-network 30-day hospital readmissions. Secondary outcomes included rates of outpatient follow-up. We evaluated outcomes for the entire cohort and stratified by patient age >60 years (425 intervention/584 controls) and ?60 years (160 intervention/341 controls). KEY RESULTS:Overall, 30-day readmission rates did not differ between intervention and control patients. However, the two age groups demonstrated marked differences. Intervention patients >60 years showed a statistically significant adjusted absolute 4.1% decrease [95% CI: -8.0%, -0.2%] in readmission with an increase in 30-day outpatient follow-up. Intervention patients ?60 years showed a statistically significant adjusted absolute 11.8% increase [95% CI: 4.4%, 19.0%] in readmission with no change in 30-day outpatient follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:A patient navigator intervention among high risk, safety-net patients decreased readmission among older patients while increasing readmissions among younger patients. Care transition strategies should be evaluated among diverse populations, and younger high risk patients may require novel strategies.

Project description:Growth of the foreign-born population in the U.S. has led to increasing numbers of limited-English-proficient (LEP) patients. Innovative medical interpreting strategies, including remote simultaneous medical interpreting (RSMI), have arisen to address the language barrier. This study evaluates the impact of interpreting method on patient satisfaction.1,276 English-, Spanish-, Mandarin-, and Cantonese-speaking patients attending the primary care clinic and emergency department of a large New York City municipal hospital were screened for enrollment in a randomized controlled trial. Language-discordant patients were randomized to RSMI or usual and customary (U&C) interpreting. Patients with language-concordant providers received usual care. Demographic and patient satisfaction questionnaires were administered to all participants.541 patients were language-concordant with their providers and not randomized; 371 were randomized to RSMI, 167 of whom were exposed to RSMI; and 364 were randomized to U&C, 198 of whom were exposed to U&C. Patients randomized to RSMI were more likely than those with U&C to think doctors treated them with respect (RSMI 71%, U&C 64%, p < 0.05), but they did not differ in other measures of physician communication/care. In a linear regression analysis, exposure to RSMI was significantly associated with an increase in overall satisfaction with physician communication/care (beta 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.18, scale 0-1.0). Patients randomized to RSMI were more likely to think the interpreting method protected their privacy (RSMI 51%, U&C 38%, p < 0.05). Patients randomized to either arm of interpretation reported less comprehension and satisfaction than patients in language-concordant encounters.While not a substitute for language-concordant providers, RSMI can improve patient satisfaction and privacy among LEP patients. Implementing RSMI should be considered an important component of a multipronged approach to addressing language barriers in health care.

Project description:BackgroundAccurate immunosuppression is of critical importance in preventing rejection, while avoiding toxicity following lung transplantation. The mainstay immunosuppressants are calcineurin inhibitors, which require regular monitoring due to interactions with other medications and diet. Adherence to immunosuppression and patient knowledge is vital and can be improved through patient education. Education using tablet-computers was investigated.ObjectiveTo compare tablet-PC education and conventional education in improving immunosuppression trough levels in target range 6 months after a single education. Secondary parameters were ratio of immunosuppression level measurements divided by per protocol recommended measurements, time and patient satisfaction regarding education.DesignSingle-centre, open labelled randomised controlled trial.ParticipantsPatients >6 months after lung-transplantation with <50% of calcineurin inhibitor trough levels in target range.InterventionTablet-pc education versus personal, nurse-led education.MeasurementsCalcineurin inhibitor levels in target range 6 months after education, level variability, interval adherence, knowledge and adherence was studied. As outcome parameter, renal function was measured and adverse events registered.ResultsSixty-four patients were 1:1 randomised for either intervention. Levels of immunosuppression 6 months after education were equal (tablet-PC 58% vs. conventional 48%, p = 0.27), both groups improved in achieving a CNI trough level within target range by either education method (delta tablet-PC 29% vs. conventional 20%). In all patients, level variability decreased (-20.4%), whereas interval adherence remained unchanged. Knowledge about immunosuppression improved by 7% and compliance tests demonstrated universal improvements with no significant difference between groups.ConclusionEducation is a simple, effective tool in improving adherence to immunosuppression. Tablet-PC education was non-inferior to conventional education.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01398488 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01398488? term=gottlieb+tablet+pc+education&rank=1.

Project description:Background:Kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease; however, long-term outcomes remain suboptimal. Objective:The objectives of our study were to examine the variation in survival rates and determine whether center volume and case mix are associated with transplant outcomes and explain the variation across kidney transplant centers in Ontario, Canada. Design:This was a population-based cohort study using health care administrative databases. Setting:A total of 5 transplant centers across Ontario, Canada. Patients:We included adults (?18 years) undergoing primary, solitary kidney transplantation between January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2013. Measurements:The co-primary outcomes were death-censored graft loss and total mortality. Methods:Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess potential associations and describe variation, using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each center relative to the average across all centers. Results:The study cohort included 5037 patients followed for a median of 5.3 years, interquartile range (2.7-8.6). In multivariable models, recipient age, body mass index, Charlson Index, time on dialysis, donor type, and age were found to be significantly associated with death-censored graft loss, and recipient age and sex, Charlson Index, time on dialysis, donor age, and time era of transplant were associated with total mortality. There was statistically significant variation across centers observed for death-censored graft loss (P = .04) with HRs ranging from 0.72 to 1.22. However, neither adjusting for case mix nor center volume meaningfully changed the HRs reflecting each center-specific effect. There was a tendency toward reduced risk of graft loss (HR, per additional 25 patients, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.78-1.04]) in centers with higher volumes. For total mortality, there was statistically significant variation across centers with HRs ranging from 0.82 to 1.13 (P = .04); however, neither adjusting for case mix or center volume meaningfully changed the HRs. Center volume was not significantly associated with total mortality (HR, per additional 25 patients, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.90-1.20]). Limitations:This study was limited by the small number of centers included. Conclusions:Outcomes differ across the 5 transplant centers in Ontario. We did not find any strong support for our hypotheses that case mix or center volume is responsible for these differences.

Dataset Information

Transplant Center Patient Navigator and Access to Transplantation among High-Risk Population: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Publications

Transplant Center Patient Navigator and Access to Transplantation among High-Risk Population: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets