Dataset Information

Nephrology Provider Surprise Question Response and Hospitalizations in Older Adults with Advanced CKD.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Older adults with advanced non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (NDD-CKD) face a high risk of hospitalization and related adverse events.

Methods

This prospective cohort study followed nephrology clinic patients ≥60 years old with NDD-CKD stages 4-5. After an eligible patient's office visit, study staff asked the patient's provider to rate the patient's risk of death within the next year using the surprise question ("Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?") with a 5-point Likert scale response (1, "definitely not surprised" to 5, "very surprised"). We used a statewide database to ascertain hospitalization during follow-up.

Results

There were 488 patients (median age 72 years, 51% female, 17% black) with median estimated glomerular filtration rate 22 mL/min/1.73 m2. Over a median follow-up of 2.1 years, the rates of hospitalization per 100 person-years in the respective response groups were 41 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34-50), "very surprised"; 65 (95% CI: 55-76), "surprised"; 98 (95% CI: 85-113), "neutral"; 125 (95% CI: 107-144), "not surprised"; and 120 (95% CI: 94-151), "definitely not surprised." In a fully adjusted cumulative probability ordinal regression model for proportion of follow-up time spent hospitalized, patients whose providers indicated that they would be "definitely not surprised" if they died spent a greater proportion of follow-up time hospitalized compared with those whose providers indicated that they would be "very surprised" (odds ratio 2.4, 95% CI: 1.0-5.7). There was a similar association for time to first hospitalization.

Conclusion

Nephrology providers' responses to the surprise question for older patients with advanced NDD-CKD were independently associated with proportion of future time spent hospitalized and time to first hospitalization. Additional studies should examine how to use this information to provide patients with anticipatory guidance on their possible clinical trajectory and to target potentially preventable hospitalizations.

SUBMITTER: Ramer SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7789871 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesPrognostic uncertainty is one barrier that impedes providers in engaging patients with CKD in shared decision making and advance care planning. The surprise question has been shown to identify patients at increased risk of dying.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsIn our prospective observational study, 488 patients ≥60 years of age with CKD stage 4 or 5 were enrolled. Binary surprise question (i.e., "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?") responses were recorded, and dialysis planning preferences, presence of advance care planning documentation, and care preceding death were abstracted.ResultsThe median patient age was 71 (65-77) years old. Providers responded no and yes to the surprise question for 171 (35%) and 317 (65%) patients, respectively. Median follow-up was 1.9 (1.5-2.1) years, during which 18% of patients died (33% of surprise question no, 10% of surprise question yes; P<0.001). In patients with a known RRT preference (58%), 13% of surprise question no participants had a preference for conservative management (versus 2% of yes counterparts; P<0.001). A medical order (i.e., physician order for life-sustaining treatment) was documented in 13% of surprise question no patients versus 5% of yes patients (P=0.004). Among surprise question no decedents, 41% died at home or hospice, 38% used hospice services, and 54% were hospitalized in the month before death. In surprise question yes decedents, 39% died at home or hospice (P=0.90 versus no), 26% used hospice services (P=0.50 versus no), and 67% were hospitalized in the month before death (P=0.40 versus surprise question no).ConclusionsNephrologists' prognostic perceptions were associated with modest changes in care, highlighting a critical gap in conservative management discussions, advance care planning, and end of life care among older adults with CKD stages 4 and 5 and high-risk clinical characteristics.PodcastThis article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2017_09_18_CJASNPodcast_17_11.mp3.

Project description:BackgroundPrognostic uncertainty is one barrier to engaging in goals-of-care discussions in chronic kidney disease (CKD). The surprise question ("Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?") is a tool to assist in prognostication. However, it has not been studied in non-dialysis-dependent CKD and its reliability is unknown.Study designObservational study.Setting & participants388 patients at least 60 years of age with non-dialysis-dependent CKD stages 4 to 5 who were seen at an outpatient nephrology clinic.PredictorTrinary (ie, Yes, Neutral, or No) and binary (Yes or No) surprise question response.OutcomesMortality, test-retest reliability, and blinded inter-rater reliability.MeasurementsBaseline comorbid conditions, Charlson Comorbidity Index, cause of CKD, and baseline laboratory values (ie, serum creatinine/estimated glomerular filtration rate, serum albumin, and hemoglobin).ResultsMedian patient age was 71 years with median follow-up of 1.4 years, during which time 52 (13%) patients died. Using the trinary surprise question, providers responded Yes, Neutral, and No for 202 (52%), 80 (21%), and 106 (27%) patients, respectively. About 5%, 15%, and 27% of Yes, Neutral, and No patients died, respectively (P<0.001). Trinary surprise question inter-rater reliability was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.42-0.72), and test-retest reliability was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.54-0.72). The trinary surprise question No response had sensitivity and specificity of 55% and 76%, respectively (95% CIs, 38%-71% and 71%-80%, respectively). The binary surprise question had sensitivity of 66% (95% CI, 49%-80%; P=0.3 vs trinary), but lower specificity of 68% (95% CI, 63%-73%; P=0.02 vs trinary).LimitationsSingle center, small number of deaths.ConclusionsThe surprise question associates with mortality in CKD stages 4 to 5 and demonstrates moderate to good reliability. Future studies should examine how best to deploy the surprise question to facilitate advance care planning in advanced non-dialysis-dependent CKD.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical practice guidelines recommend referral to nephrology when estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decreases to <30mL/min/1.73m2; however, evidence for benefits of nephrology care are mixed. STUDY DESIGN:Observational cohort using landmark analysis. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS:A national cohort of veterans with advanced chronic kidney disease, defined as an outpatient eGFR?30mL/min/1.73m2 for January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010, and a prior eGFR<60mL/min/1.73m2, using administrative and laboratory data from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the US Renal Data System. PREDICTOR:Receipt and frequency of outpatient nephrology care over 12 months. OUTCOMES:Survival and progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD; receipt of dialysis or kidney transplantation) were the primary outcomes. In addition, control of associated clinical parameters over 12 months were intermediate outcomes. RESULTS:Of 39,669 patients included in the cohort, 14,983 (37.8%) received nephrology care. Older age, heart failure, dementia, depression, and rapidly declining kidney function were independently associated with the absence of nephrology care. During a mean follow-up of 2.9 years, 14,719 (37.1%) patients died and 4,310 (10.9%) progressed to ESRD. In models adjusting for demographics, comorbid conditions, and trajectory of kidney function, nephrology care was associated with lower risk for death (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.91), but higher risk for ESRD (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.38-1.58). Among patients with clinical parameters outside guideline recommendations at cohort entry, a significantly higher adjusted proportion of patients who received nephrology care had improvement in control of hemoglobin, potassium, albumin, calcium, and phosphorus concentrations compared with those who did not receive nephrology care. LIMITATIONS:May not be generalizable to nonveterans. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with advanced chronic kidney disease, nephrology care was associated with lower mortality, but was not associated with lower risk for progression to ESRD.

Project description:Background and objectivesDespite the potential benefits of conservative management, providers rarely discuss it as a viable treatment option for patients with advanced CKD. This survey was to describe the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of nephrologists and primary care providers regarding conservative management for patients with advanced CKD in the United States.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe developed a questionnaire on the basis of a literature review to include items assessing knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported practices of conservative management for patients with advanced CKD. Potential participants were identified using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. We then conducted a web-based survey between April and May of 2015.ResultsIn total, 431 (67.6% nephrologists and 32.4% primary care providers) providers completed the survey for a crude response rate of 2.7%. The respondents were generally white, men, and in their 30s and 40s. Most primary care provider (83.5%) and nephrology (78.2%) respondents reported that they were likely to discuss conservative management with their older patients with advanced CKD. Self-reported number of patients managed conservatively was >11 patients for 30.6% of nephrologists and 49.2% of primary care providers. Nephrologists were more likely to endorse difficulty determining whether a patient with CKD would benefit from conservative management (52.8% versus 36.2% of primary care providers), whereas primary care providers were more likely to endorse limited information on effectiveness (49.6% versus 24.5% of nephrologists) and difficulty determining eligibility for conservative management (42.5% versus 14.3% of nephrologists). There were also significant differences in knowledge between the groups, with primary care providers reporting more uncertainty about relative survival rates with conservative management compared with different patient groups.ConclusionsBoth nephrologists and primary care providers reported being comfortable with discussing conservative management with their patients. However, both provider groups identified lack of United States data on outcomes of conservative management and characteristics of patients who would benefit from conservative management as barriers to recommending conservative management in practice.

Project description:BackgroundThe Surprise Question (SQ) "would I be surprised if this patient were to die in the next 12 months?" has been suggested to help clinicians, and especially General Practitioners (GPs), identify people who might benefit from palliative care. The prognostic accuracy of this approach is unclear and little is known about how GPs use this tool in practice. Are GPs consistent, individually and as a group? Are there international differences in the use of the tool? Does including the alternative Surprise Question ("Would I be surprised if the patient were still alive after 12 months?") alter the response? What is the impact on the treatment plan in response to the SQ? This study aims to address these questions.MethodsAn online study will be completed by 600 (100 per country) registered GPs. They will be asked to review 20 hypothetical patient vignettes. For each vignette they will be asked to provide a response to the following four questions: (1) the SQ [Yes/No]; (2) the alternative SQ [Yes/No]; (3) the percentage probability of dying [0% no chance - 100% certain death]; and (4) the proposed treatment plan [multiple choice]. A "surprise threshold" for each participant will be calculated by comparing the responses to the SQ with the probability estimates of death. We will use linear regression to explore any differences in thresholds between countries and other clinician-related factors, such as years of experience. We will describe the actions taken by the clinicians and explore the differences between groups. We will also investigate the relationship between the alternative SQ and the other responses. Participants will receive a certificate of completion and the option to receive feedback on their performance.DiscussionThis study explores the extent to which the SQ is consistently used at an individual, group, and national level. The findings of this study will help to understand the clinical value of using the SQ in routine practice.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03697213 (05/10/2018). Prospectively registered.