The American Dialysis Experience: How do we Create Patient Centered Care?

The American Dialysis Experience: How do we Create Patient Centered Care?
By Peter Laird, MD

I started in-center hemodialysis in February of 2007 and entered a new world of very large needles, headaches, especially after the long weekend and severe restrictions in my diet. It has been a journey that my wife has taken with me, side by side which finally led to our decision to take my treatments home. I am one of the fortunate 1% of hemodialysis patients in America able to create my own patient centered care by being at the forefront of my health care team in the comfort of my own home. Unfortunately, we are leaving too many fellow patients behind in many units that value the payment more than the patient. Many thoughtful, bright and caring advocates have long wondered how we can restore the focus back to the patient as the center of care, instead of the business as usual we see in all too many American dialysis units today. Where do we begin?

Looking at these issues over the last three years not only as a physician but as a dialyzor, I believe we are on the verge of a confluence of trends coming together in rapid fashion that could dramatically change the American dialysis experience very quickly. Focussing on this convergence may yield the greatest rewards in our collective efforts. Categorizing these trends into the framework of Alignment, Avoidance and Enforcement is helpful:

A) ALIGN:

1) The Historical Application:  Pioneers of dialysis used rehabilitation as the marker of patient treatment outcomes with more dialysis applied when patients were unable to return to work and life activities.

2)  Market Forces: Competition among FMC, Baxter, NxStage and others for the home Hemo market will be fierce.  We should align with these forces that will utilize intensive campaigns to increase patient demand for these new machines, thus expanding the home hemodialysis market.

3)  Bundle: Align and Reduce per capita health care costs of dialysis by increased utilizing of self-care and home dialysis modalities.

4)  Conditions for Coverage, 2008:

        Rehab Elements already in place in the regulations.
        Mental Health already part of Medicare Part A, B and D
        Mental Health evaluations already mandated in the CfC’s
        Informed Consent Mandated in the CfC’s
                Legally Required
                Malpractice potential for not adhering to these regulations
  1. Medical literature:

        Current literature supports more frequent and longer duration dialysis, once again in accord with the original data from the pioneering days of dialysis in the 1960's. FHN and other studies are converging upon a unified approach to optimal dialysis best summarized years ago in the Scribner-Oreopoulos Hemodialysis Product. Duration of dialysis together with frequency of dialysis gives us the best measurement of expected outcomes.
    
  2. Focus on CQI driven reviews of current practices to eliminate medical errors and iatrogenic conditions in dialysis centers.

  3. Reduce unnecessary admissions and readmissions by adhering to best dialysis practices learned in the last fifty years of this lifesaving treatment.

B) AVOID:

  1. Avoid Re-use of Artificial Kidneys.

  2. Avoid High Ultrafiltration Rates greater than 10mL/hr/kg.

  3. Avoid Sodium Modeling.

  4. Avoid Short Dialysis Times less than 4 hours for thrice weekly hemodialysis .

  5. Avoid Catheter Use, especially new onset dialysis patients by early referral for fistula placement.

  6. Avoid the long weekend, support Every Other Day (EOD) petition.

  7. Avoid Late Referrals:

        Improve education of Primary Care Physicians and Patients to optimize referals to Nephrology in a more timely manner.
    

C) ENFORCE:

  1. Annual Dialysis Inspections - State and Federal level

       QIP
       CfC’s 2008
       Bundle
    

This will need state legislative or congressional action for enforcement regulations of existing statutes. We already have many excellent regulations and statutes in place, but there are no effective inclusions of true enforcement language in these regulations.

This is my own short list of actions that would restore patient centered care to the American dialysis experience that is only afforded to the smallest percentage of dialyzors. As we move forward with the emerging postitive trends in the market place, I for one do not want to leave anyone behind. With worse survival statistics than breast cancer, prostate cancer and HIV, the American dialysis patient is a vastly underserved population not because of lack of resources, but because of lack of patient centered care that would actually be cost saving as well.

http://www.hemodoc.com/2011/01/the-american-dialysis-experience-how-do-we-create-patient-centered-care.html

I would sure love a way to get this into the hands of Don Berwick–if we could wrest his attention away from preventing hospital errors. That’s important, too, but it can’t be the sole focus of Medicare.

Thanks Dori,

These are all achievable goals in alingment with best practices outcomes we have learned as well as trends already ongoing in the dialysis market place. In addition, it acknowledges the movement of the IOM and CMS goals for improving care and reducing per capita spending. Finally, they are all in accord with what other nations have already accomplished. Why keep reinventing the wheel?

Yes, competition, competition, and more competition is what will protect the dialysis consumer from these individuals. A free market system will protect individuals from abuse, if the dialysis company does not live up to what is required, the dialysis consumer will be able to fire them right out the door. Think of how much cheaper long distance is on the phone, after deregulation. Dialysis Consumer focused care is cost saving, I would agree, 100 percent. I would agree, too many people on dialysis are being left behind, this is why I hate socialized medicine. I want the individual who is visually impaired to have dialysis, 6 days per week, in the home, with an Registered Nurse to assist him or her. From experience, individuals with mental challenges have more options than people on dialysis, I kid you not. The best power or the ultimate power for the dialysis consumer is the power to fire, not government edicts.

Believe it or not, some individuals on Nurses Online told me that dialysis care was dialysis consumer centered, I cannot tell you I never have had such a good laugh in a long, long time. It is amazing to me how blind some of these people really are, you would not believe the number of dialysis consumer and the so-called “professionals” that have not a clue about Home Dialysis, Extended or Nocturnal treatments. The next time you are in the hospital, ask them, it is an eye-opener.

I am very concerned about the day where there is going to be a shortage of Nephrologists and Nurses. Hopefully, by that time, the kidney belt will be ready.

[QUOTE=NDXUFan12;20599]Yes, competition, competition, and more competition is what will protect the dialysis consumer from these individuals. A free market system will protect individuals from abuse, if the dialysis company does not live up to what is required, the dialysis consumer will be able to fire them right out the door. Think of how much cheaper long distance is on the phone, after deregulation. Dialysis Consumer focused care is cost saving, I would agree, 100 percent. I would agree, too many people on dialysis are being left behind, this is why I hate socialized medicine. I want the individual who is visually impaired to have dialysis, 6 days per week, in the home, with an Registered Nurse to assist him or her. From experience, individuals with mental challenges have more options than people on dialysis, I kid you not. The best power or the ultimate power for the dialysis consumer is the power to fire, not government edicts.

Believe it or not, some individuals on Nurses Online told me that dialysis care was dialysis consumer centered, I cannot tell you I never have had such a good laugh in a long, long time. It is amazing to me how blind some of these people really are, you would not believe the number of dialysis consumer and the so-called “professionals” that have not a clue about Home Dialysis, Extended or Nocturnal treatments. The next time you are in the hospital, ask them, it is an eye-opener.

I am very concerned about the day where there is going to be a shortage of Nephrologists and Nurses. Hopefully, by that time, the kidney belt will be ready.[/QUOTE]

I would hope that we would not turn optimal dialysis into a referendum on our current politics in light of the fact that this is a 50 year old issue across multiple political administrations, all who have failed to solve the issues.

There is a confluence of factors coming together at the same time, but as always, the home hemodialysis option is the least supported and still is. Instead of putting the findings of the FHN to practice, all I have heard for the last month is home PD with no mention whatsoever about home Hemo. Home PD is a wonderful option for SOME patients, not all. Unfortunately, it does not do better than in-center hemo as far as outcomes. (I suspect that will be challenged with new and upcoming industry sponsored studies just in time for the bundle)

The bottom line is the home PD is the most economically viable option now under the bundle for the industry. It seems that dialysis options in America always boil down to what will make the industry the most money, not what will save the most lives of American patients. The saga of home hemodialysis continues unabated and I don’t see enough movement in the direction of optimal dialysis options for all. When will we truly have patient centered care with optimal outcomes the goal, not making money for the industry.

[QUOTE=PeterLairdMD;20603]I would hope that we would not turn optimal dialysis into a referendum on our current politics in light of the fact that this is a 50 year old issue across multiple political administrations, all who have failed to solve the issues.

There is a confluence of factors coming together at the same time, but as always, the home hemodialysis option is the least supported and still is. Instead of putting the findings of the FHN to practice, all I have heard for the last month is home PD with no mention whatsoever about home Hemo. Home PD is a wonderful option for SOME patients, not all. Unfortunately, it does not do better than in-center hemo as far as outcomes. (I suspect that will be challenged with new and upcoming industry sponsored studies just in time for the bundle)

The bottom line is the home PD is the most economically viable option now under the bundle for the industry. It seems that dialysis options in America always boil down to what will make the industry the most money, not what will save the most lives of American patients. The saga of home hemodialysis continues unabated and I don’t see enough movement in the direction of optimal dialysis options for all. When will we truly have patient centered care with optimal outcomes the goal, not making money for the industry.[/QUOTE]

Yes, you are right, Home PD is a great option for some, however, if it does not have better outcomes than In-Center, I wonder if it is a great option? The industry claims that they want dialysis patients to be independent, I have truly wondered about that one??? The industry has promoted dependence for so long, I wonder? Unlike many of you, I do not see profit as a dirty word. However, I would suggest that the industry is paid by performance, such as high Kt/V. I am not really wild about using Kv/T as a measuring stick, I like Dr. Agar’s ideas much better and I think they are much more accurate in the real world. The industry should also be paid by keeping dialysis consumers out of the hospital and off of medications with expanded or nocturnal dialysis. I think this is a start, I am sure you have some very good ideas, along with the rest of the members of this board.