Dataset Information

Perceptions of hospitalized patients and their surrogate decision makers on dialysis initiation: a pilot study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Dialysis is often initiated in the hospital during episodes of acute kidney injury and critical illness. Little is known about how patients or their surrogate decision makers feel about dialysis initiation in the inpatient setting.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study at a large academic center in the United States. All patients who initiated dialysis during a 30-day period in 2016 were approached for enrollment. Study participants were defined as individuals who provided consent for dialysis initiation - either the patient or a surrogate decision-maker. Decisional satisfaction and the degree of shared decision-making were assessed using the decisional attitude scale and the control preferences scale, respectively. These scales were incorporated into a study questionnaire along with an exploratory structured interview.

Results

A total of 31 potential participants were eligible and 21 agreed to participate in the study. Continuous renal replacement therapy was used in 14 out of 21 cases (67%) and there was 33% in-hospital mortality in the study cohort. A majority (62%) of patients were unable to participate in the consent process for dialysis initiation and had to rely on a surrogate decision-maker. The mean score for the decisional attitude scale was 4.1 (95% CI 3.8-4.3) with a score of 5 corresponding to high decisional satisfaction. Most of the decisions were classified as shared and incorporated input from clinicians as well as patients or surrogates. Although 90% of participants agreed that they had a choice in making the decision, 81% were unable to mention any alternatives to dialysis initiation.

Conclusions

Dialysis initiation was associated with high decisional satisfaction and most participants felt that the decision incorporated input from patients and providers. However, inpatient dialysis initiation was commonly associated with loss of decisional capacity and reliance on a surrogate decision-maker. This finding is likely driven by critical illness. Survivors of critical illness who remain dialysis dependent may need to revisit conversations about the rationale, risks, and benefits of dialysis.

SUBMITTER: Bansal AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6083629 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perceptions of hospitalized patients and their surrogate decision makers on dialysis initiation: a pilot study.

Bansal Amar D AD O'Connor Nina R NR Casarett David J DJ

BMC nephrology 20180808 1

<h4>Background</h4>Dialysis is often initiated in the hospital during episodes of acute kidney injury and critical illness. Little is known about how patients or their surrogate decision makers feel about dialysis initiation in the inpatient setting.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a prospective cohort study at a large academic center in the United States. All patients who initiated dialysis during a 30-day period in 2016 were approached for enrollment. Study participants were defined as individuals ...[more]

PMID: 30089458

Similar Datasets

Project description:In advanced dementia, feeding problems are nearly universal, and families face difficult decisions about feeding options. Initial interviews for a randomized trial were used to describe surrogates' perceptions of feeding options, and to determine whether a decision aid on feeding options in advanced dementia would improve knowledge, reduce expectation of benefit from tube feeding, and reduce conflict over treatment choices for persons with advanced dementia.Semistructured interview with prestudy and poststudy design for surrogates in the intervention group.Twenty-four skilled nursing facilities across North Carolina participating in a cluster randomized trial.Two hundred and fifty-five surrogate decision makers for nursing home residents with advanced dementia and feeding problems, in control (n = 129) and intervention (n = 126) groups.For intervention surrogates only, an audiovisual-print decision aid provided information on dementia, feeding problems in dementia, advantages and disadvantages of feeding tubes or assisted oral feeding options, and the role of surrogates in making these decisions.The interview included open-ended items asking surrogates to report advantages and disadvantages of tube feeding and assisted oral feeding. Knowledge of feeding options was measured with 19 true/false items and items measuring expectation of benefit from tube feeding. Surrogates reported which of these two feeding options they preferred for the person with dementia, and how confident they were in this choice; their level of conflict about the choice was measured using the decisional conflict scale.Before the decision aid, surrogates described advantages and disadvantages of assisted oral feeding and tube feeding in practical, ethical, and medical terms. After review of the decision aid, intervention surrogates had improved knowledge scores (15.5 vs 16.8; P < .001), decreased expectation of benefits from tube feeding (2.73 vs 2.32; P = .001), and reduced decisional conflict (2.24 vs 1.91; P < .001). Surrogates preferred assisted oral feeding initially and reported more certainty about this choice after the decision aid.A structured decision aid can be used to improve decision making about feeding options in dementia care.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were to develop and refine EMPOWER (Enhancing and Mobilizing the POtential for Wellness and Resilience), a brief manualized cognitive-behavioral, acceptance-based intervention for surrogate decision-makers of critically ill patients and to evaluate its preliminary feasibility, acceptability, and promise in improving surrogates' mental health and patient outcomes.MethodPart 1 involved obtaining qualitative stakeholder feedback from 5 bereaved surrogates and 10 critical care and mental health clinicians. Stakeholders were provided with the manual and prompted for feedback on its content, format, and language. Feedback was organized and incorporated into the manual, which was then re-circulated until consensus. In Part 2, surrogates of critically ill patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) reporting moderate anxiety or close attachment were enrolled in an open trial of EMPOWER. Surrogates completed six, 15-20 min modules, totaling 1.5-2 h. Surrogates were administered measures of peritraumatic distress, experiential avoidance, prolonged grief, distress tolerance, anxiety, and depression at pre-intervention, post-intervention, and at 1-month and 3-month follow-up assessments.ResultsPart 1 resulted in changes to the EMPOWER manual, including reducing jargon, improving navigability, making EMPOWER applicable for a range of illness scenarios, rearranging the modules, and adding further instructions and psychoeducation. Part 2 findings suggested that EMPOWER is feasible, with 100% of participants completing all modules. The acceptability of EMPOWER appeared strong, with high ratings of effectiveness and helpfulness (M = 8/10). Results showed immediate post-intervention improvements in anxiety (d = -0.41), peritraumatic distress (d = -0.24), and experiential avoidance (d = -0.23). At the 3-month follow-up assessments, surrogates exhibited improvements in prolonged grief symptoms (d = -0.94), depression (d = -0.23), anxiety (d = -0.29), and experiential avoidance (d = -0.30).Significance of resultsPreliminary data suggest that EMPOWER is feasible, acceptable, and associated with notable improvements in psychological symptoms among surrogates. Future research should examine EMPOWER with a larger sample in a randomized controlled trial.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients reaching end-stage renal disease must make a difficult decision regarding renal replacement therapy (RRT) options. Because the choice between dialysis modalities should include patient preferences, it is critical that patients are engaged in the dialysis modality decision. As part of the Empowering Patients on Choices for RRT (EPOCH-RRT) study, we assessed dialysis patients' perceptions of their dialysis modality decision-making process and the impact of their chosen modality on their lives. METHODS:A 39-question survey was developed in collaboration with a multi-stakeholder advisory panel to assess perceptions of patients on either peritoneal dialysis (PD) or in-center hemodialysis (HD). The survey was disseminated to participants in the large US cohorts of the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) and the Peritoneal DOPPS (PDOPPS). Survey responses were compared between PD and in-center HD patients using descriptive statistics, adjusted logistic generalized estimating equation models, and linear mixed regression models. RESULTS:Six hundred fourteen PD and 1346 in-center HD participants responded. Compared with in-center HD participants, PD participants more frequently reported that they were engaged in the decision-making process, were provided enough information, understood differences between dialysis modalities, and felt satisfied with their modality choice. PD participants also reported more frequently than in-center HD participants that partners or spouses (79% vs. 70%), physician assistants (80% vs. 66%), and nursing staff (78% vs. 60%) had at least some involvement in the dialysis modality decision. Over 35% of PD and in-center HD participants did not know another dialysis patient at the time of their modality decision and over 60% did not know the disadvantages of their modality type. Participants using either dialysis modality perceived a moderate to high impact of dialysis on their lives. CONCLUSIONS:PD participants were more engaged in the modality decision process compared to in-center HD participants. For both modalities, there is room for improvement in patient education and other support for patients choosing a dialysis modality.

Project description:Rationale: Breakdowns in clinician-family communication in intensive care units (ICUs) are common, yet there are no easily scaled interventions to prevent this problem.Objectives: To assess the feasibility, usability, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness of a communication intervention that pairs proactive family meetings with an interactive, web-based tool to help surrogates prepare for clinician-family meetings.Methods: We conducted a two-arm, single-blind, patient-level randomized trial comparing the Family Support Tool with enhanced usual care in two ICUs in a tertiary-care hospital. Eligible participants included surrogates of incapacitated patients judged by their physicians to have ≥40% risk of death or severe long-term functional impairment. The intervention group received unlimited tool access, with prompts to complete specific content upon enrollment and before two scheduled family meetings. Before family meetings, research staff shared with clinicians a one-page summary of surrogates' main questions, prognostic expectations, beliefs about the patient's values, and attitudes about goals of care. The comparator group received usual care enhanced with scheduled family meetings. Feasibility outcomes included the proportion of participants who accessed the tool before the first family meeting, mean number of logins, and average tool engagement time. We assessed tool usability with the System Usability Scale, assessed tool acceptability and perceived effectiveness with internally developed questionnaires, and assessed quality of communication and shared decision-making using the Quality of Communication questionnaire.Results: Of 182 screened patients, 77 were eligible. We enrolled 52 (67.5%) patients and their primary surrogate. Ninety-six percent of intervention surrogates (24/25) accessed the tool before the first family meeting (mean engagement time, 62 min ± 27.7) and logged in 4.2 times (±2.1) on average throughout the hospitalization. Surrogates reported that the tool was highly usable (mean, 82.4/100), acceptable (mean, 4.5/5 ± 0.9), and effective (mean, 4.4/5 ± 0.2). Compared with the control group, surrogates who used the tool reported higher overall quality of communication (mean, 8.9/10 ± 1.6 vs. 8.0/10 ± 2.4) and higher quality in shared decision-making (mean, 8.7/10 ± 1.5 vs. 8.0/10 ± 2.4), but the difference did not reach statistical significance.Conclusions: It is feasible to deploy an interactive web-based tool to support communication and shared decision-making for surrogates in ICUs. Surrogates and clinicians rated the tool as highly usable, acceptable, and effective.

Dataset Information

Perceptions of hospitalized patients and their surrogate decision makers on dialysis initiation: a pilot study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Perceptions of hospitalized patients and their surrogate decision makers on dialysis initiation: a pilot study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets