Menu
TOCPDFHDI:PDFGalleryPrev | Next

Patient Safety in Home Hemodialysis: Quality Assurance and Serious Adverse Events in the Home Setting

Authors and Affiliations:

Robert Pauly, MD, MSc, FRCPC1
Deborah Eastwood, BBus, PG Cert Health Sciences, MSc2
Mark Marshall, MBChB, MPH, FRACP3,4

1Division of Nephrology and Transplant Immunology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; 2Department of Medicine and Health of Older People, Waitemata District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand; 3Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; 4Department of Renal Medicine, Counties Manukau District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand


Ensuring Patient Safety

.

Contents

Abstract
Introduction
Epidemiology
Framework for Safety
Types of Adverse Events
Prevention
Communicating Risk
Emergency Management
Quality Assurance Process
References

.
.

Abstract

Interest in home hemodialysis (HD) is high because of the reported benefits and its excellent safety record. However, the potential for serious adverse events (AEs) exists when patients perform HD in their homes without supervision. We review the epidemiology and literature on dialysis-related emergencies during home HD, and present a conceptual and practical framework for the prevention and management of serious AEs for those patients performing home HD. In addition, we recommend and describe a formal monitored and iterative quality assurance program, and make suggestions for the future development of safety strategies to mitigate the risk of AEs in home HD.

.
.

Introduction

1 Clinicians at facility-based dialysis centers who do not have experience working with home HD often share similar concerns about patient safety.2

Despite these fears, serious adverse events (AEs) during home HD are uncommon. Experienced home HD clinics have safeguards in place to mitigate serious AEs and, if they do occur, to manage them effectively. New home HD programs will benefit from these lessons and must instill a culture of safety – without inciting alarm or undermining assurances – that home HD is a generally safe therapy. To maintain a good safety record, vigilance by patients, care partners, and center personnel is paramount to avoid and manage potential emergencies experienced in home HD programs.3

In this module, we describe a conceptual and practical framework for dialysis healthcare providers to help them address preventable serious AEs for patients during home HD, emphasizing those AEs that result from technical error with the potential to be life-threatening and/or have the capability to derail a home HD program. We highlight the life-threatening emergencies described in the literature, suggest a quality-assurance process, and provide specific strategies to facilitate expeditious care in emergency situations.

.
.

Epidemiology of Dialysis-Related Emergencies in Home HD

There is little published literature on the epidemiology of dialysis-related emergencies. Notwithstanding, it can be assumed that relatively minor and common complications of HD seen in facility-based dialysis still occur to some degree when this treatment is administered at home.

More concerning is the paucity of literature regarding dialysis-related emergencies with the potential to cause death. For the purpose of this module, such life-threatening emergencies include: blood loss (either from needle dislodgement or disconnection from a central venous catheter, bleedingfrom the dialysis circuit, or bleeding into the dialysis circuit), air embolism, hemodynamic compromise from aggressive ultrafiltration or dialysate leak, hemolysis, and acute electrolyte abnormalities associated with the treatment. While these complications are not unique to home HD, there is an inherently greater risk when they occur in a setting where trained staff cannot administer immediate emergency interventions.

Infectious complications are not considered further but are addressed within a separate module (see “Increased Risk of Infection with Buttonhole Cannulation” section in The Care and Keeping of Vascular Access for Home Hemodialysis Patients module)

A 2013 quality-improvement study involving 2 home HD programs in Canada evaluated the frequency of these AEs, and reported 1 death and 6 potentially fatal AEs in their programs over 12 years.4 This translates into a crude death rate of 2 per 1000 patient-years and a cumulative life-threatening, procedure-related AE rate (ie, death plus potentially lethal AEs) of approximately 14 events per 1000 patient-years.4 These findings are in line with a more detailed single-center analysis also from Canada, which reported a corresponding life-threatening, procedure-related AE rate of 9 per 1000 patient-years.5

The only direct comparison between home and facility HD comes from a cohort study from New Zealand, which posed the question: “For those on HD in New Zealand, does HD in the home setting result in a higher mortality risk from angioaccess bleeding or infection than HD in the facility setting, over a 15-year time frame?”6

In this analysis, there were 11 such events recorded over 8755 patient-years for those patients undergoing facility HD (1.2 events per 1000 patient-years) and 1 per 2571 patient-years for those patients undergoing home HD (0.4 events per 1000 patient-years). After multivariate adjustment, the relative risk of angioaccess bleeding or infection in home vs facility HD patients was 0.30 (0.09-0.84).6

While both the Canadian and New Zealand studies have limitations (retrospective, observational, registry-based, etc), they provide a reassuring signal that home HD is a safe therapy. Indeed, administrative data from the Scottish Renal Registry of conventional in-center hemodialysis recipients yielded a population incidence of death due directly to renal replacement therapy complications of 1.35 deaths/1000 renal replacement therapy patients per year; hyperkalemia was the most commonly attributable cause of death.7 This indirectly suggests that home HD is no more risky than in-centre hemodialysis, though the nature of AEs is different.

.

.
.

Conceptual Framework for Patient Safety in Home HD

As defined by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), “Patient safety is the prevention of harm to patients”.8 This definition is further expanded by the United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to include, “[Fundamentally] patient safety refers to freedom from accidental or preventable injuries produced by medical care”.9 However, these concepts require modification when referring to home HD.

While traditional patient safety focuses on the care provided by healthcare professionals, safety in home HD involves patient vigilance in partnership with their care partners and healthcare professionals, with discrete safety practices specific to each group. In addition, traditional patient safety doctrine emphasizes almost exclusively the prevention of error. Patient safety during home HD must also include a proactive stance to minimize patient injury in the event that such an error does occur.

A formally monitored and iterative quality assurance program is strongly recommended to enahance patient safety, as illustrated in Figure 1. This framework will be most effective if it emphasizes systems of care that (1) prevent procedure-related AEs; (2) minimize harm from those events that do occur; (3) provide a means to learn from the events that have already occurred; and (4) build a culture of safety among healthcare professionals, patients, and their care partners.

In the next sections, we discuss serious AEs reported in the home HD literature, outline strategies for their mitigation and management, and provide guidance on how to close the loop to avoid serious AEs and continue ongoing quality improvement.

.
.

Types of Procedure-Related Serious Adverse Events During Home HD

While patients dialyzing at home are subject to many of the same complications as those dialyzing in-center (eg, experiencing vascular access complications, infections, chloramine contamination), the current discussion is limited to emergencies that are unique to the home setting, either because such events cannot happen in a facility-based unit or are less likely to escape notice from trained personnel and escalate into a serious AE. The literature describes 9 cases of fatal or life-threatening AEs in home HD (Table 1), and several of these events are depicted in Figures 2 through 7.4,10,11 (Figure 2Figure 3Figure 4Figure 5Figure 6Figure 7)

Blood loss was the most common cause: 7 in total. Three episodes of bleeding from the circuit (due to poor connections between tubing and dialyzers, or the incorrect attachment of a heparin syringe to the circuit), 2 episodes of bleeding from central venous catheters due to poor connections or clamping, and 2 episodes of bleeding into the dialysis circuit (bleeding into drain bags during priming at the start of HD or during rinse-back at the end) were reported.

Murlidharan et al report a case of near fatal hypercalcemia in a patient due to the inadvertent reversal of the reverse osmosis machine product water and drain solution lines, with the product water being inappropriately discarded while the drain solution (having a very high calcium concentration) was used to generate dialysate.11

Wong et al describe a single case of air embolism in a patient occurring during disconnection from a central venous catheter.4 No episodes of hemolysis or profound hemodynamic collapse from ultrafiltration or dialysate leaks have been described, even though such events are conceivable and, in the case of hypotension, are likely underreported.

A number of key themes emerge from these cases. First, blood loss from a variety of mechanisms is most often the cause of life-threatening AEs, as outlined above. Second, human error was implicated in 7 of 9 cases and probable in the other 2. Indeed, the reported home HD?related AEs did not occur because of an absence of safety measures, rather, they occurred because patients failed to follow prescribed procedures; for example, ignoring machine alarms or neglecting to appropriately use wetness detectors (see “Fistula Hemorrhage” section in The Care and Keeping of Vascular Access for Home Hemodialysis Patients module). This underscores the importance of human error and the observation that patients will find a multitude of unpredictable ways to modify their dialysis that contravene standard operating procedures (SOPs) specifically designed to mitigate the risk of accidents.

Third, there may be a lack of patient awareness that even small, seemingly insignificant changes in a procedure may lead to serious consequences. Fourth, Wong et al note in their case series that there does not seem to be a relationship between the experience of the program and the occurrence of a catastrophic event. The majority of their reported cases occurred in the last 2 years, even though the programs had been in existence for over a decade.4

Fifth, there is no clear correlation between AE and patient experience with home HD. Four of the 8 relevant cases in the literature occurred in individuals having more than 1 year of independent dialysis experience at the time of their event.

Finally, the presence of a care partner did not prevent the AE from occurring, although care partner presence may have prevented a fatality: 2 of the 3 events that occurred while patients were alone ended in death, while none of the 6 events that occurred while a care partner was present resulted in a fatal outcome.

.

.
.

Prevention of Procedure-Related Serious Adverse Events

Prevention is key in avoiding serious AEs, and there are technological, patient, and system factors that not only contribute to AEs, but by extension can also lead to their prevention.

Technological and Environmental Factors

At the present time, there are few home HD machines on the market that are specifically designed for home use, and most are in-center machines that are adapted for self-care at home; however, it is likely that future advances in home HD technology will provide increasing layers of safety features. In the meantime, there are still some programmatic measures that can be implemented.

Current home HD machines can and should be preset to preclude any erroneous actions or lack of actions. For instance, ultrafiltration rates for conventional home HD (short hours thrice weekly) might be set to avoid excessive fluid removal (eg, maximum of 1 L/hr) as determined by the care team. Various alarm parameters might also be preset to appropriate levels to detect deviation from SOPs, although care should be taken not to do so in a manner that causes excessive machine alarming and desensitization of the patient to the alarms.

The dialysis equipment should also permit rapid adjustment in therapy as required by an emergent situation (eg, rapid administration of fluid boluses, adjustments in ultrafiltration rates). Some renal programs may wish to implement real-time remote monitoring (ie, of vital signs, treatment parameters, or physiological markers such as hematocrit, etc), the advantages and disadvantages of which are discussed below and elsewhere.12 Though not yet on the market, venous disconnect devices that automatically stop the blood pump if a needle is dislodged will likely be available soon and should also be considered as a possible safety mechanism.

The treatment environment, too, should be designed with safety and comfort in mind: a patient must have a direct line of sight to all screens and monitoring devices, wetness detectors should be placed around the access site and under the dialysis machine, and seating should be ergonomic for long treatment duration yet still permit rapid adjustment to a supine position in case of symptomatic hypotension (see “Infrastructure” in the Home Hemodialysis: Infrastructure, Water, and Machines in the Home module).

Patient Factors

Patient selection and training are perhaps the key elements in preventing serious AEs. We recommend that home HD programs develop an explicit policy for patient selection (see Patient Selection and Training for Home Hemodialysis module). For the staff, a policy is essential for driving program recruitment, and also for implementing a timely transition of patients to alternative modalities if and when home HD becomes inappropriate. For the patients, a policy makes explicit the medical requirements for home HD. It facilitates recognition that the therapy is more than simply a lifestyle choice and that there might be situations in which harm may outweigh benefits.

Useful Resources

In general, patients should be physically and intellectually able and motivated to perform home HD and its related activities, including following the treatment prescription, maintaining equipment, monitoring water and blood work, and correctly executing procedures/protocols related to troubleshooting.

Patients with skill barriers will require extra training or additional support at home to ensure their safety, or support their transition to an alternative modality if no solution offsets their increased risk.

Communication plays a key role in the avoidance of error. Training staff should provide clear messages around safe practices and candidly communicate and demarcate responsibility between patients and care partners regarding procedures/protocols, while at the same time emphasizing the final objective for training: performing technically excellent dialysis in the home, without compromise to safety.

Depending on the patient, training may be an ongoing process to achieve this end result, with either formal or informal “recertification” of patients on an annual or biannual basis. Recertification is particularly important in those patients who are deemed at risk for a procedure-related AE but for whom this modality cannot reasonably be denied a priori.

.

Systems for Support of Patients at Home

Well-defined systems for technical support are essential for maintaining patient safety once patients have completed training. These systems will vary between programs and according to the needs of their home HD patients. In general, it is adequate to support patients through patient- or provider-initiated contact rather than by routine real-time telemetry monitoring of dialysis.

While certainly not standard of care, some may see a role for real-time monitoring in assuaging anxieties in patients transitioning to home HD.13 In our experience, however, lack of real-time monitoring is not borne out as a meaningful barrier to home HD. Clinical and technical assistance for patients and their care partners should be easily accessible 24 hours a day.

An automatic alarm contact to the local paramedic unit is an option for high-risk patients. Assistance by either means may detect warning signs of impending problems, and can facilitate transfer of patients to emergency departments or respite facilities for diagnostic and therapeutic measures before an AE arises.

An important tool for maintaining patient safety is regular clinical review in the form of outpatient or home visits or telephone/telemetric assessments. The frequency of follow-up is variable, but in Canada and New Zealand, the interval between clinic appointments is typically every 3 and 6 months, respectively, while blood work is monitored monthly. Whatever the arrangement, clinical review should include careful questioning regarding patient safety. Proper protocols and procedures should be reinforced at each visit, and appropriate reeducation given when gaps are identified.

One important area for inquiry is around near misses—those events that did not cause serious harm but had the potential to do so. Inquiries should be made in a manner that avoids undue criticism of the patient or instills a culture of blame (eg, “Have you had any accidents that we should tell people about who are training at the moment?”). Open disclosure by patients is important to identify opportunities for program development, and allows near misses to be used in a constructive fashion as a teachable moment.

As noted elsewhere, home HD patients may find risky improvisations to simplify or speed up their treatments. Although not described in the original case report, 1 patient who died was using a self-built home HD station, which the patient designed and customized without the knowledge of his treating team. His setup did not allow him to have a direct line of sight to his saline bag, which almost certainly contributed to the AE.10

Nurse- or care partner–assisted home HD may be a helpful option to enable patients with worsening disability or frailty to continue dialysis at home.14,15 Nurse-assisted home HD is typically performed for residents of extended-care facilities, although this can also involve nurses attending patients in their own houses if allowed/facilitated by the local healthcare system. This initiative is useful to extend technique survival.

However, assisted home HD can be counterproductive in some circumstances: there may be a tendency for patients to not take full responsibility for their care by consciously or unconsciously limiting their understanding and competence of the equipment and the HD process if they know there is someone available to assist them in their home HD care.

The requirement for a care partner at home varies by program and by patient. Some centers require that the patient have a care partner routinely present during the entire treatment; other programs may require that the care partner be present only at specific times during a treatment, if at all. Care partners are useful for those patients needing a high degree of support, either for performing routine tasks such as initiating or discontinuing a treatment, or for emergencies that patients are not able to manage on their own.

In the extreme, a care partner may perform the entire treatment for a patient who is otherwise incapable of doing so. In general, such arrangements have been shown to be safe.14 However, the same scrupulous attention is required for training and maintaining competence of care partners as it is for the patients themselves.

The best care partners are those who can provide reliable long-term assistance to the patient, and this is correlated with a stable social environment and a lack of concurrent medical problems. Notwithstanding, all care partners should be routinely monitored for burnout, which can compromise the quality of the support and consequently patient safety.

Finally, support for patients undergoing machine-based home HD should include a procedure for their timely transition to an alternative modality, either peritoneal dialysis (PD) or facility-based HD, if machine-based home HD is no longer feasible. This decision should be motivated by changes in medical, technical, or social circumstances that might impact patient safety and should be guided by the same principles used for patient selection. This transition should be made compassionately, and only after all other avenues of support have been exhausted.

.

Patient Access to Emergency Services for Advice and Care

When and how patients should access emergency care should be explicitly outlined before they complete home training. At minimum, patients should be clear about how to contact emergency medical services (EMS) and know the location and contact details for their nearest hospital emergency department. This may be self-evident in many jurisdictions (eg, by simply telephoning 9-1-1), but not so elsewhere (eg, remote locations or jurisdictions without centralized activation of EMS).

Patients who subscribe to a personal medical alert system (a Lifeline®– or Alert 1®-type system) should be aware of how to activate that system. Patients should also know where to go for urgent respite dialysis in the event they cannot care for themselves (eg, as a result of acute illness, power outage, natural disaster).

The primary center or associated hospital HD facility will usually be the unit providing respite dialysis for those patients living near the training center. For those living remotely, emergency care may be provided at satellite or local hospital facilities. Previous arrangements should be made with healthcare professionals at those sites to broker emergency care for patients, should it become necessary.

.
.

Communicating Risk to Patients

Because until very recently there has been no published empirical data concerning absolute risk of home HD, our communication of risk to patients has been largely predicated on the fact we have successfully managed patients self-administering home HD for decades. The conversation we have with patients aims to balance the benefits of home HD (ie, the flexibility of self-treatment and modality-specific benefits such as reduced dietary restrictions and pill burden with intensive home HD therapies like short-daily or nocturnal HD) with the risks and increased burden of independent home HD (ie, responsibility for one’s own treatments/machine maintenance/water quality/supply ordering, rare and unforeseen procedure-related accidents, and risk of social isolation).

It is not our practice to quote a specific procedure-related serious AE rate explicitly. Rather, all potentially life-threatening violations of SOPs are discussed in detail at the relevant point in patients’ training. While the risk for home HD will never be zero, patients are reminded that home HD is very safe and that great care has been taken to design resources, policies, and procedures specifically aimed to minimize risk, where possible.

.
.

Emergency Management of Procedure-Related Adverse Events

Our experience with fatal and near-fatal procedure-related catastrophic events has taught us that despite the best-intentioned prevention strategies, a serious AE will eventually occur in a program. Thus, it is paramount to educate patients on emergency procedures and practice these as part of routine training and recertification.

We advocate a simple “clamp-and-call” plan that should be initiated as soon as patients or care partners notice significant blood loss, air entry into the access, deteriorating level of consciousness, or any other atypical symptom while the patient is undergoing dialysis (Figure 8). This necessitates access to a personalized medical alert system or telephone that is within reach at all times. Clamping will stop the blood pump and prevent further blood loss (the most common cause of procedure-related events) and give patients time to call for help.

For patients who dialyze with someone else in the home, the patient should call that person into the room where the dialysis is taking place to either activate the personalized medical alert system or call EMS if the patient’s situation deteriorates. If no one else is present, patients are asked to activate their personalized medical alert system or call EMS themselves if there are atypical symptoms that may suggest a potential impending emergency (eg, presyncope, palpitations, chest pressure, focal neurological symptoms, deteriorating level of consciousness).

In the absence of such symptoms, patients should contact their center-based on-call home HD staff (eg, the training unit directly or the after-hours on-call service) to discuss and appropriately manage problems. The on-call nurses or technologists should have a low threshold to initiate EMS on behalf of a reluctant or deteriorating patient.

We encourage all patients to have a preemptive emergency kit readily available and prominently positioned near their home HD machine. At the very least, kits should contain:

  • Emergency contact information for the EMS, the home HD training unit, and the nephrologist
  • A copy of the patient’s medical history, including an up-to-date medication list
  • An open letter addressed to EMS staff and hospital emergency department personnel (Table 2)

This open letter should communicate basic instructions to disconnect a patient from a hemodialysis machine (relevant for EMS crews who may be called to attend an unconscious subject still connected to a dialysis machine), contact information for home HD on-call services and the patient’s nephrologist, and a request to contact the home HD on-call service if the AE occurred while the patient was actively dialyzing.

This latter issue is important because home HD equipment may need to be inspected and interrogated in a timely manner if an AE is potentially linked to hardware malfunction. More elaborate kits can be individualized and incorporate bridging therapy to stabilize patients while definitive treatment is being sought or accessed (eg, may contain blood culture sets and empiric antibiotics for likely blood stream infection).

.
.

Quality Assurance Process

Central to any patient safety framework is an iterative quality assurance loop intended to prevent or minimize the occurrence or recurrence of an AE for an individual patient, and also for other patients within the same program.

The first step in developing a quality assurance process is certification and/or accreditation. In some parts of the world, it may be appropriate or required to have certification and/or accreditation of the home HD program itself. Irrespective of local standards, we recommend that new programs undergo a regular review by an external, experienced home HD training unit for a certain period after new program inception, if at all possible. There should be a robust training program for trainers, with regular credentialing of staff.

The second step in the development of the quality assurance loop is the establishment of robust SOPs for home HD. Quality assurance will be defined by variability of practice in relation to these procedures. SOPs need to be thoroughly understood by the staff as well as patients, and they should be individualized to meet local requirements. The importance of having SOPs cannot be overemphasized—ensuring quality assurance is not possible without them.

The third step is the documentation of process measures related to outcomes and safety. Process measures should include a key performance indicator of near misses. In addition, regular near-miss conferences should be held among the clinical staff within the training unit. Where possible, lessons learned from near misses and serious AEs should be incorporated into the home HD patient teaching curriculum. Existing patients within the program should be made aware of changes in policies and procedures during follow-up visits or by use of periodic communication from the program (eg, patient newsletters).

If a serious AE does occur, a specific Adverse Event SOP should be initiated (processes for consideration in creating such an SOP are outlined in Table 3). The purpose of this SOP is to provide guidelines in how to direct the investigation so that the appropriate parties can learn from the event. The Adverse Event SOP also provides guidance in how to disseminate the results of the investigation to appropriate stakeholders.

We feel there is potential benefit in 2 initiatives that do not yet exist but may provide the opportunity for knowledge discovery and enhancement of patient safety. The first is a global registry of serious AEs experienced by patients performing home HD, which could be set up and funded on a membership basis with information sharing among members.

The second is a Web-based self-reporting system of AEs and near misses for home HD patients. This could ensure timely and comprehensive logging of events and yield valuable insight into patient-perceived concerns. Both of these initiatives are worth exploring as value-added components within a quality assurance process.

.
.

References

  1. Tong A, Palmer S, Manns B, et al. The beliefs and expectations of patients and caregivers about home haemodialysis: an interview study. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002148.
  2. Tong A, Palmer S, Manns B, et al. Clinician beliefs and attitudes about home haemodialysis: a multinational interview study. BMJ Open. 2012;2:e002146.
  3. Hawley CM, Jeffries J, Nearhos J, Van Eps C. Complications of home hemodialysis. Hemodial Int. 2008;12(Suppl 1):S21–25.
  4. Wong B, Zimmerman D, Reintjes F, et al. Procedure-related serious adverse events among home hemodialysis patients: a quality assurance perspective. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;63:251–258.
  5. Tennankore KK, D’Gama C, Faratro R, Fung S, Wong E, Chan CT. Adverse technical events in home hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014 (in press).
  6. Marshall MR, Eastwood DO. Mortality risk from angioaccess bleeding or infection on facility versus home HD in New Zealand (abstract). J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014 (in press).
  7. Bray BD, Boyd J, Daly C, et al. How safe is renal replacement therapy? A national study of mortality and adverse events contributing to the death of renal replacement therapy recipients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2014; 29:681–687.
  8. Aspden P, Corrigan JM, Wolcott J, Erickson SM. Patient Safety. Achieving a New Standard of Care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2004.
  9. AHRQ PSNet Patient Safety Network. Patient safety. Available at: http://psnet.ahrq.gov. Accessed September 2, 2013.
  10. Allcock K, Jagannathan B, Hood CJ, Marshall MR. Exsanguination of a home hemodialysis patient as a result of misconnected blood-lines during the wash back procedure: a case report. BMC Nephrol. 2012;13:28.
  11. Murlidharan P, Chan CT, Bargman JM. Catastrophic hypercalcemia as a technical complication in home hemodialysis. NDT Plus. 2011;4:251–252.
  12. Marshall MR, Pierratos A, Pauly RP. Delivering home hemodialysis: is there still a role for real-time monitoring? Semin Dial. 2014 Nov 30. Doi: 10.1111/sdi. 12327. [Epub ahead of print]
  13. Cafazzo JA, Leonard K, Easty AC, Rossos PG, Chan CT. Patient perceptions of remote monitoring for nocturnal home hemodialysis. Hemodial Int. 2010;14:471–477.
  14. Tennankore KK, Kim SJ, Chan CT. The feasibility of caregiver-assisted home nocturnal hemodialysis. Nephron Clin Pract. 2012;122:17–23.
  15. Cornelis T, Kotanko P, Goffin E, van der Sande FM, Kooman JP, Chan CT. Intensive hemodialysis in the (nursing) home: the bright side of geriatric ESRD care? Semin Dial. 2012;25:605–610.

 

PracticeTip1

 

Links to Patient Education Resources

American Association of Kidney Patients, Understanding the Role of a Renal Social Worker:
https://www.aakp.org/…

British Renal Society, Educational Resources: http://www.britishrenal.org/…

DaVita: http://www.davita.com/…

Home Dialysis Central, Patient Education: http://homedialysis.org/links/C68

The Kidney Foundation of Canada: http://www.kidney.ca/…

Kidney Health Australia, For Patients: http://www.kidney.org.au/…

HomeDialysis.org.au, Am I Ready to Choose?:
http://homedialysis.org.au/…

Kidney School Module 2, Treatment Options for Kidney Failure: http://kidneyschool.org/m02/

Life Options: http://lifeoptions.org/

Life Options, How to Have a Good Future with Kidney Disease videos (set of 6):
http://lifeoptions.org/…

My Life, My Dialysis Choice: http://mydialysischoice.org/

National Kidney Foundation, Patient Resources: https://www.kidney.org/…

RenalWEB, Patient Education: http://www.renalweb.com/…

Links to Health Professional Resources

Baxter Healthcare, Healthcare Professionals Education Resources:
http://www.baxter.com/…

British Renal Society, Educational Resources: http://www.britishrenal.org/

DaVita: http://www.davita.com/physicians/

The Kidney Foundation of Canada: http://www.kidney.ca/

Kidney Health Australia, Health Professionals:
http://www.kidney.org.au/…

Life Options, How to Have a Good Future with Kidney Disease. Free downloadable CKD patient education toolkit for professionals: http://www.lifeoptions.org/…

National Kidney Foundation: https://www.kidney.org/

 

Overcoming Service-Level Barriers to Home Dialysis

The major barriers to greater use of home dialysis (both home HD and PD) at a service level relate to inadequate provision of information and education of patients, dialysis unit staff, and nephrologists, as well as to inadequate organizational or structural program support for home dialysis training and care.14 A strong clinician recommendation that actively promotes home dialysis for suitable patients is a key element and requires optimal education about home dialysis in the course of physician training, and exposure to the local home dialysis program when these physicians enter practice.

Successful home dialysis programs should include (1) a medical director who is a champion of home dialysis and has the support of the physicians, social workers, and dieticians on the team, and (2) experienced nurses who are strong proponents of home dialysis and are good teachers. The program should be busy, supporting a home dialysis population of at least 12 to 20 patients and training 10 or more patients per year, thereby maintaining staff experience and cost-effectiveness. Often, the best approach is regionalization of home dialysis training, rather like transplant programs, with referral of suitable patients to the program for training and home support.

For a detailed discussion of the issues related to developing a successful home hemodialysis program, please refer to “How to Overcome Barriers and Establish a Successful Home HD Program” by Bessie Young et al, a paper developed on behalf of the American Society of Nephrology Dialysis Advisory Group.14

.

 

Additional Approaches to Educate Patients

A valuable way to augment the education provided by the multidisciplinary team is to connect potential home dialysis patients and their family members with those who are already achieving success on home dialysis (sometimes called a home “champion”). This can be done on a one-on-one basis (ie, peer-to-peer) or in group settings. Peers can provide the additional context and support for ambivalent and frightened potential patients and their families in a way that catalyzes decision making in favor of attempting home dialysis. For more information, see Psychosocial Guide for Patients, Families, and Dialysis Partners module.

Suitability for Home Dialysis

There is astonishing variability in the prevalence of home dialysis (home HD and PD) both between and within nations, and the larger part of this variability is not explained by patient age and comorbidity.15-17 The literature shows clearly that many more patients are eligible for home dialysis than are currently receiving it in most regions in the world.

Perhaps the most widely recognized tool for assessment of suitability is the MATCH-D tool (Method to Assess Treatment Choices for Home Dialysis; http://homedialysis.org/match-d ), which starts at the default position of home dialysis, escalates to solving for any barriers, and then defaults to facility hemodialysis if the barriers prove insurmountable.18 As both a practical and philosophical framework, the MATCH-D tool works to identify and maximize opportunities for patients to be offered and accept home dialysis (Table 1).

Seeking Home Hemodialysis Patients from Overlooked Populations

Failed PD Patients

Unfortunately, technique failure is a common cause of PD transition to in-center HD. Because these are patients who previously selected and maintained themselves on PD, many would be suitable for a planned transition to home HD. Timing of these discussions is important, because ideally these patients would have an AVF or AVG created before the PD failure occurred; therefore, elective transfer to home HD could happen without the need for placing a CVC.

Failed Transplant Patients

Graft loss is another pathway often leading patients to in-center HD. Given that transplanted patients are a highly selected group, younger and more robust than an in-center population, this subgroup would also be potentially suitable candidates for a home dialysis option, either PD or home HD. Once again, timely education and early modality decision making would allow for effective transition to home HD. Shared care models and a multidisciplinary approach, involving both the transplant and home dialysis teams, might improve planning for this transition and avoid late referrals to in-center or to home programs.


Overcoming Suboptimal Initiation of Dialysis

Right Start Approach

Suboptimal initiation of dialysis, which includes initiating dialysis while the patient is hospitalized and/or via a CVC, can result in negative consequences; these negative consequences can occur with either early or late referral.5 Fresenius and DaVita have published experiences with such a case-managed approach to the critical first few months of in-center hemodialysis.7,19,20

The mechanics of this approach are variable. It can be applied by a dedicated nurse, and/or in a segregated area where incident patients are clustered. One variation of case management involves forming a therapeutic relationship with hospital nephrologists, promoting home dialysis, while incident HD patients are still hospitalized, as has been described recently.12

Transition Care

One approach to optimizing uptake of home dialysis employs the philosophy that if at all possible, patients who are potentially suitable for home dialysis should be informed of and offered those modalities before beginning dialysis, and completely avoid exposure to an in-center HD unit.12,21 Patients who are undecided about which modality to choose, or those new and uneducated patients who start HD under suboptimal conditions may be dialyzed in a community-based facility or in a dedicated room adjacent to a home dialysis training area.

Specialized nurses provide emotional support and gently teach patients the benefits of home dialysis in these areas, and actively encourage patients to choose a final modality that consists of either PD or home HD. A detailed discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of home dialysis should be provided. This discussion should include a thorough exploration of patient apprehensions and misapprehensions.12,21 This support should be available to undecided patients for at least a month before they are considered as in-center HD patients.

Even among patients who do start on in-center HD, it is often possible to promote future consideration of home dialysis. Education to all patients, therefore, must be comprehensive and demonstrate the benefits of home HD.

Whenever possible, patients should be encouraged to participate in some level of self-care. Success in these activities can boost a patient’s confidence to progress to independent home dialysis and allow for a fresh and more serious consideration of home dialysis.


Approaches to Remote Patient Populations

Patients living in remote areas should have equal access to renal services, including dialysis. Home dialysis is particularly suited to this patient group. Patients trained in home dialysis are able to return to their homes and continue in their normal activities with the least interruption to their lives and their families.

There are many novel approaches to enable home dialysis. One example includes shared dialysis community facilities to accommodate those patients without a home deemed suitable for home HD. Patients who can perform unsupervised home HD can complete their HD within these shared settings.

Approximately 7 of these community facilities now exist across Australia and New Zealand.22-25 More information about the Australian facilities can be found at: http://www.kidney.org.au/


Selecting the First Patients for a New Home HD Program

To set up a new home HD program, it is important to initially select those patients who will most likely achieve success to train and then return home (Table 2). Below is a list of ideal characteristics your first 10 patients should have.

  • No comorbidities and no serious complications of kidney failure
  • Life expectancy > 2 years
  • Motivated and committed to go home
  • Have a home suitable to accommodate home HD
  • Literate with good self-management skills
  • Physically fit and able to dialyze independently
  • Established and reliable vascular access


Conclusion

A successful home dialysis program requires the commitment of the entire multidisciplinary team. The key to a successful home dialysis program is the identification and cultivation of patients who are suitable candidates to perform home dialysis. This process must start as early as possible using established guidelines and a multidisciplinary team approach to active promotion of home dialysis for suitable patients.


References

  1. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work Group. KDIGO 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney Int Suppl.2013; 3:1–150.
  2. Goovaerts T, Jadoul M, Goffin E. Influence of a pre-dialysis education programme (PDEP) on the mode of renal replacement therapy. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005; 20:1842–1847.
  3. Goovaerts T, Jadoul M, Goffin E. Influence of a predialysis education program on the choice of renal replacement therapy. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012; 60:499–500.
  4. Key SM. Optimizing dialysis modality choices around the world: a review of literature concerning the role of enhanced early pre-ESRD education in choice of renal replacement therapy modality. Nephrol Nurs J. 2008; 35:387–395.
  5. Mendelssohn DC, Curtis B, Yeates K, et al. Suboptimal initiation of dialysis with and without early referral to a nephrologist. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011; 26:2959–2965.
  6. Levin A, Lewis M, Mortiboy P, et al. Multidisciplinary predialysis programs: quantification and limitations of their impact on patient outcomes in two Canadian settings. Am J Kidney Dis. 1997; 29:533–540.
  7. Wilson SM, Robertson JA, Chen G, et al. The IMPACT (Incident Management of Patients, Actions Centered on Treatment) program: a quality improvement approach for caring for patients initiating long-term hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012; 60:435–443.
  8. Thomas MC, Caring for Australians with Renal Impairment (CARI). The CARI guidelines. Prevention of progression of kidney disease: pre-dialysis education for patients with chronic kidney disease. Nephrology (Carlton). 2007; 12 Suppl 1:S46–48.
  9. Mendelssohn DC, Toffelmire EB, Levin A. Attitudes of Canadian nephrologists toward multidisciplinary team-based CKD clinic care. Am J Kidney Dis. 2006; 47:277–284.
  10. Canadian Society of Nephrology. Report of the Canadian society of nephrology vascular access working group. Semin Dial. 2012; 25:22–25.
  11. Lewis AL, Stabler KA, Welch JL. Perceived informational needs, problems, or concerns among patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Nurs J. 2010; 37:143–149.
  12. Porter E, Watson D, Bargman JM. Education for patients with progressive CKD and acute-start dialysis. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2013; 20:302–310.
  13. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guideline TA48. Guidance on home compared with hospital haemodialysis for patients with end-stage renal failure. 2002.
  14. Young BA, Chan C, Blagg C, et al. How to overcome barriers and establish a successful home HD program. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012; 7:2023–2032.
  15. Khawar O, Kalantar-Zadeh K, Lo WK, Johnson D, Mehrotra R. Is the declining use of long-term peritoneal dialysis justified by outcome data? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007; 2:1317–1328.
  16. Mehrotra R, Kermah D, Fried L, Kalantar-Zadeh K, Khawar O, Norris K, et al. Chronic peritoneal dialysis in the United States: declining utilization despite improving outcomes. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007; 18:2781–2788.
  17. Marshall, MR, Walker RC, Polkinghome KR, Lynn KL. Survival on home dialysis in New Zealand. PLoS One 2014;9 (5):e96847.
  18. Schatell D. MATCH-D: a roadmap to home dialysis therapy. Nephrol News Issues. 2007; 21:41–44.
  19. Wingard RL, Pupim LB, Krishnan M, Shintani A, Ikizler TA, Hakim RM. Early intervention improves mortality and hospitalization rates in incident hemodialysis patients: RightStart program. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007; 2:1170–1175.
  20. Lacson E, Wang W, DeVries C, et al. Effects of a nationwide predialysis educational program on modality choice, vascular access, and patient outcomes. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011; 58:235–242.
  21. Watson D. Acute start?chronic needs: education and support for adults who have had acute start dialysis. Semin Dial. 2013; 26:184–187.
  22. Marley JV, Dent HK, Wearne M, et al. Haemodialysis outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients of remote Kimberley region origin. Med J Aust. 2010; 193:516–520.
  23. Villarba A, Warr K. Home haemodialysis in remote Australia. Nephrology (Carlton). 2004; 9 Suppl 4:S134–137.
  24. Kneipp E, Murray R, Warr K, Fitzclarence C, Wearne M, Maguire G. Bring me home: renal dialysis in the Kimberley. Nephrology (Carlton). 2004; 9 Suppl 4:S121–125.
  25. Marshall MR, van der Schrieck N, Lilley D, et al. Independent community house hemodialysis as a novel dialysis setting: an observational cohort study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013; 61:598–607.
TOCPDFHDI:PDFGalleryPrev | Next