BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) remain the preferred vascular access for hemodialysis patients. Dialysis facilities that fail to meet Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services goals cite patient case-mix as a reason for low AVF prevalence. This study aimed to determine the magnitude of the variability in AVF usage across dialysis facilities and the extent to which patient case-mix explains it. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: The vascular access used in 10,112 patients dialyzed at 173 Dialysis Clinic Inc. facilities from October 1 to December 31, 2004, was evaluated. The access in use was considered to be an AVF if it was used for >70% of hemodialysis treatments. Mixed-effects models with a random intercept for dialysis facilities evaluated the effect of facilities on AVF usage. Sequentially adjusted multivariate models measured the extent to which patient factors (case-mix) explain variation across facilities in AVF rates. RESULTS: 3787 patients (38%) were dialyzed using AVFs. There was a significant facility effect: 7.6% of variation in AVF use was attributable to facility. This was reduced to 7.1% after case-mix adjustment. There were no identified specific facility-level factors that explained the interfacility variation. CONCLUSIONS: AVF usage varies across dialysis facilities, and patient case-mix did not reduce this variation. In this study, 92% of the total variation in AVF usage was due to patient factors, but most were not measurable. A combination of patient factors and process indicators should be considered in adjudicating facility performance for this quality indicator.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) remain the preferred vascular access for hemodialysis patients. Dialysis facilities that fail to meet Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services goals cite patient case-mix as a reason for low AVF prevalence. This study aimed to determine the magnitude of the variability in AVF usage across dialysis facilities and the extent to which patient case-mix explains it. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: The vascular access used in 10,112 patients dialyzed at 173 Dialysis Clinic Inc. facilities from October 1 to December 31, 2004, was evaluated. The access in use was considered to be an AVF if it was used for >70% of hemodialysis treatments. Mixed-effects models with a random intercept for dialysis facilities evaluated the effect of facilities on AVF usage. Sequentially adjusted multivariate models measured the extent to which patient factors (case-mix) explain variation across facilities in AVF rates. RESULTS: 3787 patients (38%) were dialyzed using AVFs. There was a significant facility effect: 7.6% of variation in AVF use was attributable to facility. This was reduced to 7.1% after case-mix adjustment. There were no identified specific facility-level factors that explained the interfacility variation. CONCLUSIONS: AVF usage varies across dialysis facilities, and patient case-mix did not reduce this variation. In this study, 92% of the total variation in AVF usage was due to patient factors, but most were not measurable. A combination of patient factors and process indicators should be considered in adjudicating facility performance for this quality indicator.
Authors: Jeffrey C Fink; Van Doren Hsu; Min Zhan; Lori D Walker; C Daniel Mullins; Charlotte Jones-Burton; Patricia Langenberg; Stephen L Seliger Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2007-01-17 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Ronald L Pisoni; Eric W Young; Dawn M Dykstra; Roger N Greenwood; Erwin Hecking; Brenda Gillespie; Robert A Wolfe; David A Goodkin; Philip J Held Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Ann M O'Hare; R Adams Dudley; Denise M Hynes; Charles E McCulloch; Daniel Navarro; Philip Colin; Kevin Stroupe; Joseph Rapp; Kirsten L Johansen Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Ahmed A Al-Jaishi; Charmaine E Lok; Amit X Garg; Joyce C Zhang; Louise M Moist Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Samantha Ng; Elaine M Pascoe; David W Johnson; Carmel M Hawley; Kevan R Polkinghorne; Stephen McDonald; Philip A Clayton; Kannaiyan S Rabindranath; Matthew A Roberts; Ashley B Irish; Andrea K Viecelli Journal: Kidney360 Date: 2021-02-09
Authors: L Ebony Boulware; Navdeep Tangri; Patti L Ephraim; Julia J Scialla; Stephen M Sozio; Deidra C Crews; Tariq Shafi; Dana C Miskulin; Jiannong Liu; Wendy St Peter; Bernard G Jaar; Albert W Wu; Neil R Powe; Sankar D Navaneethan; Karen Bandeen-Roche Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Edward G Clark; Ayub Akbari; Brett Hiebert; Swapnil Hiremath; Paul Komenda; Charmaine E Lok; Louise M Moist; Michael E Schachter; Navdeep Tangri; Manish M Sood Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2016-02-27 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Lisa M Miller; Lavern M Vercaigne; Louise Moist; Charmaine E Lok; Navdeep Tangri; Paul Komenda; Claudio Rigatto; Julie Mojica; Manish M Sood Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 2.388