SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT:Nephrologist staffing models for patients receiving hemodialysis vary widely. Patients may be cared for continuously by a single primary nephrologist or by a group of nephrologists on a rotating basis. It remains unclear whether these differing care models influence clinical outcomes. In this population-based cohort study of more than 14,000 incident patients on maintenance hemodialysis from Ontario, Canada, we found no difference in mortality, kidney transplantation, home dialysis initiation, hospitalizations, or emergency department visits when care was provided by a single primary nephrologist or a rotating group of nephrologists. These results suggest that primary nephrologist models do not necessarily improve objective clinical outcomes, providing reassurance to patients, providers, and administrators that both models are acceptable options.

INTRODUCTION:The cause of constipation is multifactorial and common problem for patients on hemodialysis. A lack of strong evidence on suitable treatment strategies means there is an unorganized approach to selecting therapies, which can exacerbate constipation or worsen symptoms. Clinicians and patients would benefit from a content and face validated treatment algorithm for treating constipation. In this study, our objective was to develop and content and face validate a constipation treatment toolkit for patients on hemodialysis, consisting of treatment algorithm, and patient information tools (pamphlet and video).METHODS:Literature searches were performed to develop an initial toolkit using Lynn's method for developing content-valid clinical tools. Content and face validity were evaluated as per Lynn's method for determining content validity; the algorithm was evaluated by Canadian nephrology clinicians, while patient information tools were evaluated by clinicians and patients. Components were rated on a Likert scale for content relevance and on a 5-point scale for face validity. After each round, the content validity index (CVI) score was calculated and revisions were made based on feedback.FINDINGS:A total of 23 clinicians and 15 patients were interviewed across three validation rounds. After three rounds, the treatment algorithm achieved content (overall CVI = 0.93) and face (91% agreement) validity. Our patient information tools achieved content and face validity (pamphlet overall CVI = 0.99, 85.5% agreement; video overall CVI = 0.99, 90.5% agreement).DISCUSSION:A treatment algorithm and patient information toolkit for the treatment of constipation in patients on hemodialysis were content and face validated via expert review. Further research will be needed to ascertain the effectiveness and implementation of this toolkit.

Rationale & Objective: Hemodialysis patients are at increased risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission due in part to difficulty maintaining physical distancing. Our hemodialysis unit experienced a COVID-19 outbreak despite following symptom-based screening guidelines. We describe the course of the COVID-19 outbreak and the infection control measures taken for mitigation. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting & Participants: 237 maintenance hemodialysis patients and 93 hemodialysis staff at a single hemodialysis center in Toronto, Canada. Exposure: Universal screening of patients and staff for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Outcomes: The primary outcome was detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal samples from patients and staff using reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Analytical Approach: Descriptive statistics were used for clinical characteristics and the primary outcome. Results: 11 of 237 (4.6%) hemodialysis patients and 11 of 93 (12%) staff members had a positive RT-PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2. Among individuals testing positive, 12 of 22 (55%) were asymptomatic at time of testing and 7 of 22 (32%) were asymptomatic for the duration of follow-up. One patient was hospitalized at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection and 4 additional patients with positive test results were subsequently hospitalized. 2 (18%) patients required admission to the intensive care unit. After 30 days' follow-up, no patients had died or required mechanical ventilation. No hemodialysis staff required hospitalization. Universal droplet and contact precautions were implemented during the outbreak. Hemodialysis staff with SARS-CoV-2 infection were placed on home quarantine regardless of symptom status. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, including asymptomatic individuals, were treated with droplet and contact precautions until confirmation of negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test results. Analysis of the outbreak identified 2 index cases with subsequent nosocomial transmission within the dialysis unit and in shared shuttle buses to the hemodialysis unit. Limitations: Single-center study. Conclusions: Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing and universal droplet and contact precautions in the setting of an outbreak appeared to be effective in preventing further transmission.

BACKGROUND:Quality metrics or indicators help guide quality improvement work by reporting on measurable aspects of health care upon which improvement efforts can focus. For recipients of in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) in Canada, it is unclear what ICHD quality indicators exist and whether they adequately cover different domains of health care quality.OBJECTIVES:To identify and evaluate current Canadian ICHD quality metrics to document a starting point for future collaborations and standardization of quality improvement in Canada.DESIGN:Environmental scan of quality metrics in ICHD, and subsequent indicator evaluation using a modified Delphi approach.SETTING:Canadian ICHD units.PARTICIPANTS:Sixteen-member pan-Canadian working group with expertise in ICHD and quality improvement.MEASUREMENTS:We classified the existing indicators based on the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Donabedian frameworks.METHODS:Each metric was rated by a 5-person subcommittee using a modified Delphi approach based on the American College of Physicians/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality criteria. We shared these consensus ratings with the entire 16-member panel for additional comments.RESULTS:We identified 27 metrics that are tracked across 8 provinces, with only 9 (33%) tracked by multiple provinces (ie, more than 1 province). We rated 9 metrics (33%) as "necessary" to distinguish high-quality from low-quality care, of which only 2 were tracked by multiple provinces (proportion of patients by primary access and rate of vascular access-related bloodstream infections). Most (16/27, 59%) indicators assessed the IOM domains of safe or effective care, and none of the "necessary" indicators measured the IOM domains of timely, patient-centered, or equitable care.LIMITATIONS:The environmental scan is a nonexhaustive list of quality indicators in Canada. The panel also lacked representation from patients, administrators, and allied health professionals, with more representation from academic sites.CONCLUSIONS:Quality indicators in Canada mainly focus on safe and effective care, with little provincial overlap. These results highlight current gaps in quality of care measurement for ICHD, and this initial work should provide programs with a starting point to combine highly rated indicators with newly developed indicators into a concise balanced scorecard that supports quality improvement initiatives across all aspects of ICHD care.TRIAL REGISTRATION:not applicable.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE Surveillance blood work is routinely performed in maintenance hemodialysis (HD) recipients. Although more frequent blood testing may confer better outcomes, there is little evidence to support any particular monitoring interval. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective population-based cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS All prevalent HD recipients in Ontario, Canada, as of April 1, 2011, and a cohort of incident patients commencing maintenance HD in Ontario, Canada, between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2016. EXPOSURE Frequency of surveillance blood work, monthly versus every 6 weeks. OUTCOMES The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, all-cause hospitalization, and episodes of hyperkalemia. ANALYTICAL APPROACH Cox proportional hazards with adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics was used to evaluate the association between blood testing frequency and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were evaluated using the Andersen-Gill extension of the Cox model to allow for potential recurrent events. RESULTS 7,454 prevalent patients received care at 17 HD programs with monthly blood sampling protocols (n=5,335 patients) and at 8 programs with blood sampling every 6 weeks (n=2,119 patients). More frequent monitoring was not associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality compared to blood sampling every 6 weeks (adjusted HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.99-1.38). Monthly monitoring was not associated with a lower risk for any of the secondary outcomes. Results were consistent among incident HD recipients. LIMITATIONS Unmeasured confounding; limited data for center practices unrelated to blood sampling frequency; no information on frequency of unscheduled blood work performed outside the prescribed sampling interval. CONCLUSIONS Monthly routine blood testing in HD recipients was not associated with a lower risk for death, cardiovascular events, or hospitalizations as compared with testing every 6 weeks. Given the health resource implications, the frequency of routine blood sampling in HD recipients deserves careful reassessment.

BACKGROUND:Exercise improves functional outcomes and quality of life of older patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing hemodialysis. Yet exercise is not promoted as part of routine care. Health care providers and family carers rarely provide encouragement for patients to exercise, and the majority of older patients remain largely inactive. There is thus the need for a shift in the culture of hemodialysis care towards the promotion of exercise for wellness, including expectations of exercise participation by older patients, and encouragement by health care providers and family carers. Film-based educational initiatives hold promise to effect cultures of best practice, but have yet to be utilized in this population.METHODS:We developed a research-based film, Fit for Dialysis, to promote exercise for wellness in hemodialysis care. Using a qualitative approach, we evaluated the effects that resulted from engagement with this film (e.g. knowledge/attitudes regarding the importance of exercise-based principles of wellness) as well as the generative mechanisms of these effects (e.g. realism, aesthetics). We also explored the factors related to patients, family carers, and health care providers that influenced engagement with the film, and the successful uptake of the key messages of Fit for Dialysis. We conducted qualitative interviews with 10 patients, 10 health care providers, and 10 family carers. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.RESULTS:The film was perceived to be effective in increasing patients', family carers' and health care providers' understanding of the importance of exercise and its benefits, motivating patients to exercise, and in increasing encouragement by family carers and health care providers of patient exercise. Realism (e.g. character identification) and aesthetic qualities of the film (e.g. dialogue) were identified as central generative mechanisms.CONCLUSIONS:Fit for Dialysis is well-positioned to optimize the health and wellbeing of older adults undergoing hemodialysis.TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02754271 ( ClinicalTrials.gov ), retroactively registered on April 21, 2016.

Evidence suggests that exercise training for hemodialysis patients positively improves morbidity and mortality outcomes, yet exercise programs remain rare and are not systematically incorporated into care. We developed a research-based film, Fit for Dialysis, designed to introduce, motivate, and sustain exercise for wellness amongst older hemodialysis patients, and exercise counseling and support by nephrologists, nurses, and family caregivers. The objective of this clinical trial is to determine whether and in what ways Fit for Dialysis improves outcomes and influences knowledge/attitudes regarding the importance of exercise for wellness in the context of end-stage renal disease.

To achieve sustainable change, quality improvement initiatives must become the new way of working rather than something added on to routine clinical care. However, most organizational change is not maintained. In this next article in this Moving Points in Nephrology feature on quality improvement, we provide health care professionals with strategies to sustain and support quality improvement. Threats to sustainability may be identified both at the beginning of a project and when it is ready for implementation. The National Health Service Sustainability Model is reviewed as one example to help identify issues that affect long-term success of quality improvement projects. Tools to help sustain improvement include process control boards, performance boards, standard work, and improvement huddles. Process control and performance boards are methods to communicate improvement results to staff and leadership. Standard work is a written or visual outline of current best practices for a task and provides a framework to ensure that changes that have improved patient care are consistently and reliably applied to every patient encounter. Improvement huddles are short, regular meetings among staff to anticipate problems, review performance, and support a culture of improvement. Many of these tools rely on principles of visual management, which are systems transparent and simple so that every staff member can rapidly distinguish normal from abnormal working conditions. Even when quality improvement methods are properly applied, the success of a project still depends on contextual factors. Context refers to aspects of the local setting in which the project operates. Context affects resources, leadership support, data infrastructure, team motivation, and team performance. For these reasons, the same project may thrive in a supportive context and fail in a different context. To demonstrate the practical applications of these quality improvement principles, these principles are applied to a hypothetical quality improvement initiative that aims to promote home dialysis (home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis).

This article will demonstrate how to conduct a quality improvement project using the change idea generated in "How To Use Quality Improvement Tools in Clinical Practice: How To Diagnose Solutions to a Quality of Care Problem" by Dr. Ziv Harel and colleagues in this Moving Points feature. This change idea involves the introduction of a nurse educator into a CKD clinic with a goal of increasing rates of patients performing dialysis independently at home (home hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis). Using this example, we will illustrate a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle in action and highlight the principles of rapid cycle change methodology. We will then discuss the selection of outcome, process, and balancing measures, and the practicalities of collecting these data in the clinic environment. We will also introduce the PDSA worksheet as a practical way to oversee the progress of a quality improvement project. Finally, we will demonstrate how run charts are used to visually illustrate improvement in real time, and how this information can be used to validate achievement, respond appropriately to challenges the project may encounter, and prove the significance of results. This article aims to provide readers with a clear and practical framework upon which to trial their own ideas for quality improvement in the clinical setting.

BACKGROUND:Patients with end-stage renal disease are at high risk for medical errors given their comorbidities, polypharmacy and coordination of care with other hospital departments. We previously developed a hemodialysis safety checklist (Hemo Pause) to be jointly completed by nurses and patients. Our objective was to determine the feasibility of using this checklist during every hemodialysis session for 3 months.METHODS:We conducted a single-center, prospective time series study. A convenience sample of 14 nurses and 22 prevalent in-center hemodialysis patients volunteered to participate. All participants were trained in the administration of the Hemo Pause checklist. The primary outcome was completion of the Hemo Pause checklist, which was assessed at weekly intervals. We also measured the acceptability of the Hemo Pause checklist using a local patient safety survey.RESULTS:There were 799 hemodialysis treatments pre-intervention (13 January-5 April 2014) and 757 post-intervention (5 May-26 July 2014). The checklist was completed for 556 of the 757 (73%) treatments. Among the hemodialysis nurses, 93% (13/14) agreed that the checklist was easy to use and 79% (11/14) agreed it should be expanded to other patients. Among the hemodialysis patients, 73% (16/22) agreed that the checklist made them feel safer and should be expanded to other patients.CONCLUSIONS:The Hemo Pause safety checklist was acceptable to both nurses and patients over 3 months. Our next step is to spread this checklist locally and conduct a mixed methods study to determine mechanisms by which its use may improve safety culture and reduce adverse events.

Quality improvement involves a combined effort among health care staff and stakeholders to diagnose and treat problems in the health care system. However, health care professionals often lack training in quality improvement methods, which makes it challenging to participate in improvement efforts. This article familiarizes health care professionals with how to begin a quality improvement project. The initial steps involve forming an improvement team that possesses expertise in the quality of care problem, leadership, and change management. Stakeholder mapping and analysis are useful tools at this stage, and these are reviewed to help identify individuals who might have a vested interest in the project. Physician engagement is a particularly important component of project success, and the knowledge that patients/caregivers can offer as members of a quality improvement team should not be overlooked. After a team is formed, an improvement framework helps to organize the scientific process of system change. Common quality improvement frameworks include Six Sigma, Lean, and the Model for Improvement. These models are contrasted, with a focus on the Model for Improvement, because it is widely used and applicable to a variety of quality of care problems without advanced training. It involves three steps: setting aims to focus improvement, choosing a balanced set of measures to determine if improvement occurs, and testing new ideas to change the current process. These new ideas are evaluated using Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, where knowledge is gained by testing changes and reflecting on their effect. To show the real world utility of the quality improvement methods discussed, they are applied to a hypothetical quality improvement initiative that aims to promote home dialysis (home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis). This provides an example that kidney health care professionals can use to begin their own quality improvement projects.

To change a particular quality of care outcome within a system, quality improvement initiatives must first understand the causes contributing to the outcome. After the causes of a particular outcome are known, changes can be made to address these causes and change the outcome. Using the example of home dialysis (home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis), this article within this Moving Points feature on quality improvement will provide health care professionals with the tools necessary to analyze the steps contributing to certain outcomes in health care quality and develop ideas that will ultimately lead to their resolution. The tools used to identify the main contributors to a quality of care outcome will be described, including cause and effect diagrams, Pareto analysis, and process mapping. We will also review common change concepts and brainstorming activities to identify effective change ideas. These methods will be applied to our home dialysis quality improvement project, providing a practical example that other kidney health care professionals can replicate at their local centers.

Background: The World Health Organization created a Surgical Safety Checklist with a pause or “time out” to help reduce preventable adverse events and improve communication. A similar tool might improve patient safety and reduce treatment-associated morbidity in the hemodialysis unit. Objective: To develop a Hemodialysis Safety Checklist (Hemo Pause) for daily use by nurses and patients. Design: A modified Delphi consensus technique based on the RAND method was used to evaluate and revise the checklist. Setting: University-affiliated in-center hemodialysis unit. Participants: A multidisciplinary team of physicians, nurses, and administrators developed the initial version of the Hemo Pause Checklist. The evaluation team consisted of 20 registered hemodialysis nurses. Measurements: The top 5 hemodialysis safety measures according to hemodialysis nurses. A 75% agreement threshold was required for consensus. Methods: The structured panel process was iterative, consisting of a literature review to identify safety parameters, individual rating of each parameter by the panel of hemodialysis nurses, an in-person consensus meeting wherein the panel refined the parameters, and a final anonymous survey that assessed panel consensus. Results: The literature review produced 31 patient safety parameters. Individual review by panelists reduced the list to 25 parameters, followed by further reduction to 19 at the in-person consensus meeting. The final round of scoring yielded the following top 5 safety measures: 1) confirmation of patient identity, 2) measurement of pre-dialysis weight, 3) recognition and transcription of new medical orders, 4) confirmation of dialysate composition based on prescription, and 5) measurement of pre-dialysis blood pressure. Revision using human factors principles incorporated the 19 patient safety parameters with greater than or equal to 75% consensus into a final checklist of 17-items. Limitations: The literature review was not systematic. This was a single-center study, and the panel lacked patient and family representation. Conclusions: A novel 17-item Hemodialysis Safety Checklist (Hemo Pause) for use by nurses and patients has been developed to standardize the hemodialysis procedure. Further quality improvement efforts are underway to explore the feasibility of using this checklist to reduce adverse events and strengthen the safety culture in the hemodialysis unit.

BACKGROUND:In patients with Stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease who require renal replacement therapy a major decision concerns modality choice. However, many patients defer the decision about modality choice or they have an urgent or emergent need of RRT, which results in them starting hemodialysis with a Central Venous Catheter. Thereafter, efforts to help patients make more timely decisions about access choices utilizing education and resource allocation strategies met with limited success resulting in a high prevalent CVC use in Canada. Providing decision support tailored to meet patients' decision making needs may improve this situation. The Registered Nurses Association of Ontario has developed a clinical practice guideline to guide decision support for adults living with Chronic Kidney Disease (Decision Support for Adults with Chronic Kidney Disease.) The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of implementing selected recommendations this guideline on priority provincial targets for hemodialysis access in patients with Stage 5 CKD who currently use Central Venous Catheters for vascular access.METHODS/DESIGN:A non-experimental intervention study with repeated measures will be conducted at St. Michaels Hospital in Toronto, Canada. Decisional conflict about dialysis access choice will be measured using the validated SURE tool, an instrument used to identify decisional conflict. Thereafter a tailored decision support intervention will be implemented. Decisional conflict will be re-measured and compared with baseline scores. Patients and staff will be interviewed to gain an understanding of how useful this intervention was for them and whether it would be feasible to implement more widely. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Statistical significance of difference between means over time for aggregated SURE scores (pre/post) will be assessed using a paired t-test. Qualitative analysis with content coding and identification of themes will be conducted for the focus group and patient interview data.DISCUSSION:Coupling the SURE tool with a decision support system structured so that a positive test result triggers providers to help patients through the decision-making process and/or refer patients to appropriate resources could benefit patients and ensure they have the opportunity to make informed HD access choices.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESSome patients are not optimally treated by conventional in-center hemodialysis (HD) and are unable to perform home HD. We examined the effect of in-center thrice-weekly nocturnal HD (INHD) on patient outcomes.DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTSPatients who were not optimally treated on conventional HD were offered INHD. Thirty-nine patients' laboratory data and medication use were analyzed for the 12 mo before and after conversion to INHD until September 1, 2007. Quality of life on conventional HD and INHD was compared.RESULTSAfter conversion to INHD, median values for phosphorus decreased from 5.9 to 3.7 mg/dl (P < 0.01), alkaline phosphatase level increased from 84 to 161 U/L (P < 0.01), and percentage reduction in urea increased from 74 to 89% (P < 0.01). The mean number of antihypertensive drugs prescribed declined from 2.0 to 1.5 (P < 0.05) during the course of INHD, and the mean daily dosage of phosphate binders declined from 6.2 to 4.9 at study end (P < 0.05). There was a significant reduction in erythropoietin-stimulating agent use of 1992 U/wk (P < 0.01). There was no significant change in median hemoglobin, iron saturation, corrected calcium, or parathyroid hormone levels. Overall, quality of life, sleep, intradialytic cramps, appetite, and energy level all improved significantly on INHD.CONCLUSIONSINHD offers an effective form of HD for long-term dialysis patients who are unable to perform home HD.