Dataset Information

Practice patterns in transitioning patients from chronic kidney disease to dialysis: a survey of United States nephrologists.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are no guidelines for transitioning patients from chronic kidney disease stage 5 to hemodialysis. We conducted this study to determine if there are uniform patterns in how nephrologists transition patients to dialysis.

Methods

We designed an electronic survey with 39 questions and sent it to a database of practicing nephrologists at the National Kidney Foundation. Factors that were important for transitioning a patient to hemodialysis were evaluated, including medication changes on dialysis initiation, dry weight and dialysis prescription.

Results

160 US Nephrologists replied to the survey; 18% (29/160) of the responses were completed via social media sites. Prior to dialysis, 74% (118/160), prescribed furosemide and 67% (107/160) used furosemide with metolazone. Once dialysis started, only 46% (74/160) of the responders continued patients on diuretics daily. Hypertension medications prescribed in dialysis were calcium channel blockers 69% (112/160), beta blockers 36% (58/160), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor 32% (53/160), angiotensin receptor blocker 29% (46/160) and diuretics 25% (42/160). Once dialysis started, 68% (109/160) routinely changed medications. Most, 67% (107/160) ordered patients to avoid anti-hypertensive medications on dialysis days to allow for ultrafiltration. Dry weight was determined in the first week by 29% (46/160) and in the first month by 53% (85/160). Most, 59% (94/160) felt that multiple causes lead to hypertension. Most nephrologists would prescribe small dialyzers and a shorter period of time for the first dialysis session.

Conclusion

The transition period to chronic hemodialysis has variations in practice patterns and may benefit from further studies to optimize clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Mallappallil MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6013940 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Practicing clinical nephrologists are performing fewer diagnostic kidney biopsies. Requiring biopsy procedural competence for graduating nephrology fellows is controversial. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS:An anonymous, on-line survey of all Walter Reed training program graduates (n=82; 1985-2017) and all United States nephrology program directors (n=149; August to October of 2017), regarding kidney biopsy practice and training, was undertaken. RESULTS:Walter Reed graduates' response and completion rates were 71% and 98%, respectively. The majority felt adequately trained in native kidney biopsy (83%), transplant biopsy (82%), and tissue interpretation (78%), with no difference for ≤10 versus >10 practice years. Thirty-five percent continued to perform biopsies (13% did ≥10 native biopsies/year); 93% referred at least some biopsies. The most common barriers to performing biopsy were logistics (81%) and time (74%). Program director response and completion rates were 60% and 77%. Seventy-two percent cited ≥1 barrier to fellow competence. The most common barriers were logistics (45%), time (45%), and likelihood that biopsy would not be performed postgraduation (41%). Fifty-one percent indicated that fellows should not be required to demonstrate minimal procedural competence in biopsy, although 97% agreed that fellows should demonstrate competence in knowing/managing indications, contraindications, and complications. Program directors citing ≥1 barrier or whose fellows did <50 native biopsies/year in total were more likely to think that procedural competence should not be required versus those citing no barriers (P=0.02), or whose fellows performed ≥50 biopsies (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Almost two-thirds of graduate respondents from a single military training program no longer perform biopsy, and 51% of responding nephrology program directors indicated that biopsy procedural competence should not be required. These findings should inform discussion of kidney biopsy curriculum requirements.

Project description:Background:Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has emerged as an important modality for the treatment of intracranial metastases. There are currently few established guidelines delineating indications for SRS use and fewer still regarding plan evaluation in the treatment of multiple brain metastases. Methods:An 18 question electronic survey was distributed to radiation oncologists at National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated cancer centers in the USA (60). Centers without radiation oncologists were excluded. Physicians who indicated that they do not prescribe SRS were excluded from the remaining survey questions. Sign test and Chi-square test were used to determine if responses differed significantly from random distribution. Results:One hundred sixteen of the 697 radiation oncologists surveyed completed the questionnaire, representing 51 institutions. Sixty-two percent reported treating patients with brain metastases using SRS. Radiation oncologists prescribing SRS most commonly treat CNS (66.2%) and lung (49.3%) malignancies. SRS was used more frequently for < 10 brain metastases (73.7%; p < 0.0001) and whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) for > 10 brain metastases (82.5%; p < 0.0001). The maximum number of lesions physicians were willing to treat with SRS without WBRT was 1-4 (40.4%) and 5-10 (42.4%) (p < 0.0001 compared to 11-15, 16-20 and no limit). The most important criteria for choosing SRS or WBRT were number of lesions (p < 0.0001) and performance status (p = 0.016). The most common margin for SRS was 0 mm (49.1%; p = 0.0021). The most common dose constraints other than critical structure was conformity index (84.2%) and brain V12 (61.4%). The LINAC was the most common treatment modality (54.4%) and mono-isocenter technique for multiple brain metastases was commonly used (43.9%; p = 0.23). Most departments do not have a policy for brain metastases treatment (64.9%; p = 0.024). Conclusions:This is one of the first national surveys assessing the use of SRS for brain metastases in clinical practice. These data highlight some clinical considerations for physicians treating brain metastases with SRS.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Feldenkrais Method® teachers help students improve function and quality of life through verbally and manually guided lessons. The reasons people seek Feldenkrais® lessons are poorly understood. Similarly, little is known about practice characteristics and patterns. To address these knowledge gaps, we conducted an extensive survey of United States Guild Certified Feldenkrais Teachers®. METHODS: We invited all Feldenkrais Teachers to participate in this survey delivered in web-based or print formats. We obtained overall and question-specific response rates, descriptive statistics, chi-square tests of response bias, and performed qualitative thematic review of comments. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 30.5% (392/1287). Ninety percent of responders had college degrees in diverse fields; 12.5% had credentials outside health care, 36.9% held conventional health care licenses, and 23.1% had complementary and alternative medicine credentials. Mean age was 55.7 years; most teachers were women (83%). California (n = 100) and New York (n = 34) had the most teachers. Forty-five percent of teachers earned ≤ 20% of their gross income from their practices, while 26% earned > 80%. Most saw < 10 students/week for individual lessons and < 10 students/week for group lessons. Students were mostly women (71.1%) and 45-64 years old. The primary reason students sought Feldenkrais lessons was pain. A quarter of students self-referred, a fifth were referred by conventional health care providers, and two-thirds paid for services directly. Themes from comments included: beliefs that Feldenkrais training had important personal and professional benefits for teachers; recognition of the challenges of operating small businesses and succinctly describing the Feldenkrais Method; the variety of practice approaches; and a deep commitment to the Feldenkrais Method. CONCLUSIONS: Most Feldenkrais Teachers were well educated, often held additional credentials, were located in the West, were women, were older than 50 years, and had part-time practices. Most students were women, were adults, came from various referral sources, and paid directly for services. Teachers and students utilized the Feldenkrais Method in diverse settings and applications. These findings may foster practice development by Feldenkrais Teachers, improve communication between health care consumers and providers and assist decision-making, and stimulate more research concerning the Feldenkrais Method.

Project description:There is a variation in dialysis withdrawal rates, but reasons for this variation across European countries are largely unknown. We therefore surveyed nephrologists' perceptions of factors concerning dialysis withdrawal and palliative care and explored relationships between these perceptions and reports of whether withdrawal actually occurred in practice.We developed a 33-item electronic survey, disseminated via an email blast to all European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) members. In our data analyses, we distinguished those respondents who reported occurrence from those reporting no dialysis withdrawal in their unit. With multilevel logistic regression, we investigated the association between respondents' characteristics and perceptions and whether they reported occurrence of dialysis withdrawal or not.Five hundred and twenty-eight nephrologists from 45 countries completed the questionnaire; 42% reported occurrence of withdrawal in their unit in the past year, and 56% perceived that stopping life-prolonging treatment in terminally ill patients was allowed. Few respondents reported presence in their unit of protocols on withdrawal decision making (7%) or palliative care (10%) or the common involvement of a geriatrician in withdrawal decisions (10%). The majority stated that palliative care had not been part of their core curriculum (74%) and that they had not recently attended continuous medical education sessions on this topic (73%). Respondents from Eastern and Southern Europe had a 42 and 40% lower probability, respectively, of reporting withdrawal compared with those from North European countries. Working in a public centre [odds ratio (OR), 2.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.36-4.25] and respondents' perception that stopping life-prolonging treatment in terminally ill patients was allowed (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.23-3.12), that withdrawal decisions were commonly shared between doctor and patient (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.26-3.08) and that palliative care was reimbursed (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.16-2.83) increased the odds of reporting occurrence of withdrawal.Reports of dialysis withdrawal occurrence varied between European countries. Occurrence reports were more likely if respondents worked in a public centre, if stopping life-prolonging treatments was perceived as allowed, if withdrawal decisions were considered shared between doctors and patients and if reimbursement of palliative care was believed to be in place. There is room for improvement regarding protocols on withdrawal and palliative care processes and regarding nephrologists' training and education on end-of-life care.