BACKGROUND: Non-adherence to dialysis recommendations is common and associated with poor outcomes. We used data from a cohort of in-center hemodialysis patients to determine whether patients reported difficulties with adherence were associated with achievement of clinical targets for treatment recommendations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 799 in-center patients receiving hemodialysis from February 2010 to October 2016 at Emory Dialysis (Atlanta, GA, USA). Patient-reported difficulty with adherence (yes vs no) across multiple domains (coming to dialysis, completing dialysis sessions, fluid restrictions, diet restrictions, taking medications) was obtained from baseline social worker assessments. Achievement of clinical targets for coming to dialysis (missing ≥3 expected sessions), completing dialysis sessions (shortening >3 sessions by ≥15 min), fluid restrictions (mean interdialytic weight gain ≥3 kg), diet restrictions (mean potassium ≥5.0 mEq/L, mean phosphate >5.5 mg/dL), and taking medications (mean phosphate >5.5 mg/dL) was estimated over the following 12 weeks, using electronic medical record data. Crude agreement was assessed, and multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the associations between these measures. RESULTS: Agreement between reported difficulty in adherence and failure to achieve clinical targets was generally poor across all domains (percent agreement: 52.9-65.3%). After adjustment, patients reporting difficulty with fluid restrictions were 62% more likely to have mean interdialytic weight gain ≥3 kg than those not reporting difficulty (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.08, 2.43). Patients reporting difficulty with coming to dialysis were 41% more likely to miss ≥3 expected dialysis sessions over 12 weeks (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 0.96, 2.07); however, this association was not statistically significant. There were no significant associations between reported difficulty and failure to achieve clinical targets in other categories. CONCLUSION: While reported difficulty with only fluid restrictions and coming to dialysis were associated with failure to achieve clinical targets in our study, the general lack of agreement between reported difficulty with adherence and failure to achieve clinical targets highlights a gap that could be explored to develop and target educational interventions aimed at increasing adherence among dialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the effect of psychosocial factors on hospital readmission in the setting of hemodialysis is limited. We examined whether social worker-assessed factors were associated with 30-day readmission among prevalent hemodialysis patients. METHODS: Data on 14 factors were extracted from the first available psychosocial assessment performed by social workers at three metropolitan Atlanta dialysis centers. Index admissions (first admission preceded by ≥30 days without a previous hospital discharge) were identified in the period 2/1/10-12/31/14, using linked national administrative hospitalization data. Readmission was defined as any admission within 30 days after index discharge. Associations of each of the psychosocial factors with readmission were assessed using multivariable logistic regression with adjustment for patient and index admission characteristics. RESULTS: Among 719 patients with index admissions, 22.1% were readmitted within 30 days. No psychosocial factors were statistically significantly associated with readmission risk. However, history of substance abuse vs. none was associated with a 29% higher risk of 30-day readmission [OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.75-2.23], whereas depression/anxiety was associated with 20% lower risk [OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.47-1.36]. Patients who were never married and those who were divorced, or widowed had 38 and 17% higher risk of 30-day readmission, respectively, than those who were married [OR: 1.38, 95% CI: 0.84-2.72; OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.73-1.90]. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that psychosocial issues may be associated with risk of 30-day readmission among dialysis patients. Despite the limitations of lack of generalizability and potential misclassification due to patient self-report of psychosocial factors to social workers, further study is warranted to determine whether addressing these factors through targeted interventions could potentially reduce readmissions among hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Black patients are disproportionately affected by COVID-19. The purpose of this study was to compare risks of hospitalization of Black and non-Black COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department and, of those hospitalized, to compare mortality and acute kidney injury. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 831 adult COVID-19 patients (68.5% Black) who presented to the emergency departments of four academic hospitals, March 1, 2020-May 31, 2020. The primary outcome was risk of hospitalization among Blacks vs. non-Blacks. Secondary outcomes were mortality and acute kidney injury, among hospitalized patients. RESULTS: The crude odds of hospitalization were not different in Black vs. non-Black patients; however, with adjustment for age, Blacks had 55% higher odds of hospitalization. Mortality differed most in the model adjusted for age alone. Acute kidney injury was more common in the Black hospitalized patients, regardless of adjustment. Stratified analyses suggested that disparities in the risk of hospitalization and of in-hospital acute kidney injury were highest in the youngest patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our report shows that Black and non-Black patients presenting to the emergency department with COVID-19 had similar risks of hospitalization and, of those who were hospitalized, similar mortality when adjusted for multiple factors. Blacks had higher risk of acute kidney injury. Our results suggest that examination of disparities without exploration of the individual effects of age and comorbidities may mask important patterns. While stratified analyses suggest that disparities in outcomes may differ substantially by age and comorbid conditions, further exploration among these important subgroups is needed to better target interventions to reduce disparities in COVID-19 clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Readmission within 30 days of hospital discharge is common and costly among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. Little is known about long-term outcomes after readmission. We estimated the association between hospital admissions and readmissions in the first year of dialysis and outcomes in the second year. METHODS: Data on incident dialysis patients with Medicare coverage were obtained from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS). Readmission patterns were summarized as no admissions in the first year of dialysis (Admit-), at least one admission but no readmissions within 30 days (Admit+/Readmit-), and admissions with at least one readmission within 30 days (Admit+/Readmit+).We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the association between readmission pattern and mortality, hospitalization, and kidney transplantation, accounting for demographic and clinical covariates. RESULTS: Among the 128,593 Medicare ESRD patients included in the study, 18.5% were Admit+/Readmit+, 30.5% were Admit+/Readmit-, and 51.0% were Admit-. Readmit+/Admit+ patients had substantially higher long-term risk of mortality (HR = 3.32 (95% CI, 3.21-3.44)), hospitalization (HR = 4.46 (95% CI, 4.36-4.56)), and lower likelihood of kidney transplantation (HR = 0.52 (95% CI, 0.44-0.62)) compared to Admit- patients; these associations were stronger than those among Admit+/Readmit- patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with readmissions in the first year of dialysis were at substantially higher risk of poor outcomes than either patients who had no admissions or patients who had hospital admissions but no readmissions. Identifying strategies to both prevent readmission and mitigate risk among patients who had a readmission may improve outcomes among this substantial, high-risk group of ESRD patients.

BACKGROUND: Emory Dialysis serves an urban and predominantly African American population at its four outpatient dialysis facilities. We describe COVID-19 infection control measures implemented and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 in the Emory Dialysis facilities. METHODS: Implementation of COVID-19 infection procedures commenced in February 2020. Subsequently, COVID-19 preparedness assessments were conducted at each facility. Patients with COVID-19 from March 1-May 31, 2020 were included; with a follow-up period spanning March-June 30, 2020. Percentages of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were calculated, and characteristics of COVID-19 patients were summarized as medians or percentage. Baseline characteristics of all patients receiving care at Emory Dialysis (i.e. Emory general dialysis population) were presented as medians and percentages. RESULTS: Of 751 dialysis patients, 23 (3.1%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. The median age was 67.0 years and 13 patients (56.6%) were female. Eleven patients (47.8%) were residents of nursing homes. Nineteen patients (82.6%) required hospitalization and 6 patients (26.1%) died; the average number of days from a positive SARS-CoV-2 (COVID) test to death was 16.8 days (range 1-34). Two patients dialyzing at adjacent dialysis stations and a dialysis staff who cared for them, were diagnosed with COVID-19 in a time frame that may suggest transmission in the dialysis facility. In response, universal masking in the facility was implemented (prior to national guidelines recommending universal masking), infection control audits and re-trainings of PPE were also done to bolster infection control practices. CONCLUSION: We successfully implemented recommended COVID-19 infection control measures aimed at mitigating the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Most of the patients with COVID-19 required hospitalizations. Dialysis facilities should remain vigilant and monitor for possible transmission of COVID-19 in the facility.

BACKGROUND: U.S. hospitals and dialysis centers are penalized for 30-day hospital readmissions of dialysis patients, despite little infrastructure to facilitate care transitions between these settings. We are developing a third-party web-based information exchange platform, DialysisConnect, to enable clinicians to view and exchange information about dialysis patients during admission, hospitalization, and discharge. This health information technology solution could serve as a flexible and relatively affordable solution for dialysis facilities and hospitals across the nation who are seeking to serve as true partners in the improved care of dialysis patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the perceived coherence of DialysisConnect to key clinical stakeholders, to prepare messaging for implementation. METHODS: As part of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study guided by Normalization Process Theory, we collected data on stakeholder perceptions of continuity of care for patients receiving maintenance dialysis and a DialysisConnect prototype before completing development and piloting the system. We conducted four focus groups with stakeholders from one academic hospital and associated dialysis centers [hospitalists (n = 5), hospital staff (social workers, nurses, pharmacists; n = 9), nephrologists (n = 7), and dialysis clinic staff (social workers, nurses; n = 10)]. Transcriptions were analyzed thematically within each component of the construct of coherence (differentiation, communal specification, individual specification, and internalization). RESULTS: Participants differentiated DialysisConnect from usual care variously as an information dashboard, a quick-exchange communication channel, and improved discharge information delivery; some could not differentiate it in terms of workflow. The purpose of DialysisConnect (communal specification) was viewed as fully coherent only for communicating outside of the same healthcare system. Current system workarounds were acknowledged as deterrents for practice change. All groups delegated DialysisConnect tasks (individual specification) to personnel besides themselves. Partial internalization of DialysisConnect was achieved only by dialysis clinic staff, based on experience with similar technology. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing DialysisConnect for clinical users in both settings will require presenting a composite picture of current communication processes from all stakeholder groups to correct single-group misunderstandings, as well as providing data about care transitions communication beyond the local context to ease resistance to practice change.

BACKGROUND: Provider recognition of level of functioning may be suboptimal in the dialysis setting, and this lack of recognition may lead to less patient-centered care. We aimed to assess whether delivery of an app-based, individualized functioning report would improve patients perceptions of patient-centeredness of care. METHODS: In this pre-post pilot study at three outpatient dialysis facilities in metropolitan Atlanta, an individualized functioning report-including information on physical performance, perceived physical functioning, and community mobility-was delivered to patients receiving hemodialysis (n = 43) and their providers. Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to gather patient and provider feedback to develop and assess the report and app. Paired t test was used to test for differences in patient perception of patient-centeredness of care (PPPC) scores (range, 1 = most patient-centered to 4 = least patient-centered) 1 month after report delivery. RESULTS: Delivery of the reports to both patients and providers was not associated with a subsequent change in patients perceptions of patient-centeredness of their care (follow-up vs. baseline PPPC scores of 2.35 vs. 2.36; P > 0.9). However, patients and providers generally saw the potential of the report to improve the patient-centeredness of care and reacted positively to the individualized reports delivered in the pilot. Patients also reported willingness to undergo future assessments. However, while two-thirds of surveyed providers reported always or sometimes discussing the reports they received, most (98%) participating patients reported that no one on the dialysis care team had discussed the report with them within 1 month. CONCLUSIONS: Potential lack of fidelity to the intervention precludes definitive conclusions about effects of the report on patient-centeredness of care. The disconnect between patients and providers perceptions of discussions of the report warrants future study. However, this study introduces a novel, individualized, multi-domain functional report that is easily implemented in the setting of hemodialysis. Our pilot study provides guidance for improving its use both clinically and in future pragmatic research studies, both within and beyond the dialysis population.

BACKGROUND: Both dialysis facilities and hospitals are accountable for 30-day hospital readmissions among U.S. hemodialysis patients. We examined the association of post-hospitalization processes of care at hemodialysis facilities with pulmonary edema-related and other readmissions. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort comprised of electronic medical record (EMR) data linked with national registry data, we identified unique patient index admissions (n = 1056; 2/1/10-7/31/15) that were followed by ≥3 in-center hemodialysis sessions within 10 days, among patients treated at 19 Southeastern dialysis facilities. Indicators of processes of care were defined as present vs. absent in the dialysis facility EMR. Readmissions were defined as admissions within 30 days of the index discharge; pulmonary edema-related vs. other readmissions defined by discharge codes for pulmonary edema, fluid overload, and/or congestive heart failure. Multinomial logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for pulmonary edema-related and other vs. no readmissions. RESULTS: Overall, 17.7% of patients were readmitted, and 8.0% had pulmonary edema-related readmissions (44.9% of all readmissions). Documentation of the index admission (OR = 2.03, 95% CI 1.07-3.85), congestive heart failure (OR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.07-3.27), and home medications stopped (OR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.08-3.05) or changed (OR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.06-2.70) in the EMR post-hospitalization were all associated with higher risk of pulmonary edema-related vs. no readmission; lower post-dialysis weight (by ≥0.5 kg) after vs. before hospitalization was associated with 40% lower risk (OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that some interventions performed at the dialysis facility in the post-hospitalization period may be associated with reduced readmission risk, while others may provide a potential existing means of identifying patients at higher risk for readmissions, to whom such interventions could be efficiently targeted.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients present with kidney failure at younger ages than White patients. Younger patients are also more likely to receive transplants and home dialysis than in-center hemodialysis (ICHD), but it is unknown whether racial and ethnic disparities in treatment differ by age. We compared use of kidney replacement therapies between racial and ethnic groups among patients with incident kidney failure overall and by age. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 830,402 US adult (age >21 years) patients initiating kidney failure treatment during the period of 2011-2018. EXPOSURES: Patient race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, or other) and age group (22-44, 45-64, 65-74, or 75-99 years). OUTCOME: Treatment modality (transplant, peritoneal dialysis [PD], home hemodialysis [HHD], or ICHD) as of day 90 of treatment. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Differences in treatment modalities were quantified for patient subgroups defined by race and ethnicity and by age. Log-binomial regression models were fit to estimate adjusted risk ratios. RESULTS: 81% of patients were treated with ICHD, 3.0% underwent transplants (85% preemptive, 57% living-donor), 10.5% were treated with PD, and 0.7% were treated with HHD. Absolute disparities in treatment were most pronounced among patients aged 22-44 years. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, whose percentages of treatment with transplant, PD, and HHD were 10.9%, 19.0%, and 1.2%, respectively, non-Hispanic Black patients were less commonly treated with each modality (unadjusted percentages, 1.8%, 13.8%, and 0.6%, respectively), as were Hispanic patients (4.4%, 16.9%, and 0.5%, respectively; all differences P < 0.001). After adjustment, the largest relative disparities were observed for transplant among the 22-44-year age group; compared with non-Hispanic White patients, the adjusted risk ratios for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients were 0.21 (95% CI, 0.19-0.23) and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.43, 0.51), respectively. LIMITATIONS: Race and ethnicity data not self-reported. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with incident kidney failure, racial and ethnic disparities in transplant and home dialysis use are most pronounced among the youngest adult patient age group.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Suboptimal care coordination between dialysis facilities and hospitals is an important driver of 30-day hospital readmissions among patients receiving dialysis. We examined whether the introduction of web-based communications platform (DialysisConnect) was associated with reduced hospital readmissions. STUDY DESIGN: Pilot pre-post study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4,994 index admissions at a single hospital (representing 2,419 patients receiving dialysis) during the study period (January 1, 2019-May 31, 2021). INTERVENTION: DialysisConnect was available to providers at the hospital and 4 affiliated dialysis facilities (=intervention facilities) during the pilot period (November 1, 2020-May 31, 2021). OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was 30-day readmission; secondary outcomes included 30-day emergency department visits and observation stays. Interrupted time series and linear models with generalized estimating equations were used to assess pilot versus prepilot differences in outcomes; difference-in-difference analyses were performed to compare these differences between intervention versus control facilities. Sensitivity analyses included a third, prepilot/COVID-19 period (March 1, 2020-October 31, 2020). RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the monthly trends in the 30-day readmissions pilot versus prepilot periods (-0.60 vs -0.13, P = 0.85) for intervention facility admissions; the difference-in-difference estimate was also not statistically significant (0.54 percentage points, P = 0.83). Similar analyses including the prepilot/COVID-19 period showed that, despite a substantial drop in admissions at the start of the pandemic, there were no statistically significant differences across the 3 periods. The age-, sex-, race-, and comorbid condition-adjusted, absolute pilot versus prepilot difference in readmissions rate was 1.8% (-3.7% to 7.3%); similar results were found for other outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Potential loss to follow-up and pandemic effects. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot, the introduction of DialysisConnect was not associated with reduced hospital readmissions. Tailored care coordination solutions should be further explored in future, multisite studies to improve the communications gap between dialysis facilities and hospitals.