Ikumi Okamoto1, Sarah Tonkin-Crine1, Hugh Rayner2, Fliss E M Murtagh3, Ken Farrington4, Fergus Caskey5, Charles Tomson5, Fiona Loud6, Roger Greenwood4, Donal J O'Donoghue7, Paul Roderick8. 1. Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; 2. Department of Renal Medicine, Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom; 3. Department of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, London, United Kingdom; 4. Renal Unit, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, United Kingdom; 5. Renal Unit, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom; 6. British Kidney Patient Association, United Kingdom; and. 7. Department of Renal Medicine, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, United Kingdom. 8. Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; pjr@soton.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Conservative kidney management (CKM) has been developed in the United Kingdom (UK) as an alternative to dialysis for older patients with stage 5 CKD (CKD5) and multiple comorbidities. This national survey sought to describe the current scale and pattern of delivery of conservative care in UK renal units and identify their priorities for its future development. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A survey on practice patterns of CKM for patients age 75 and older with CKD5 was sent to clinical directors of all 71 adult renal units in the UK in March 2013. RESULTS: Sixty-seven units (94%) responded. All but one unit reported providing CKM for some patients. Terminology varied, although "conservative management" was the most frequently used term (46%). Lack of an agreed-upon definition of when a patient is receiving CKM made it difficult to obtain meaningful data on the numbers of such patients. Fifty-two percent provided the number of CKM patients age ≥ 75 years in 2012; the median was 45 per unit (interquartile range [IQR], 20-83). The median number of symptomatic CKM patients who would otherwise have started dialysis was eight (IQR, 4.5-22). CKM practice patterns varied: 35% had a written guideline, 23% had dedicated CKM clinics, 45% had dedicated staff, and 50% provided staff training on CKM. Most units (88%) provided primary care clinicians with information/advice regarding CKM. Eighty percent identified a need for better evidence comparing outcomes on CKM versus dialysis, and 65% considered it appropriate to enter patients into a randomized trial. CONCLUSIONS: CKM is provided in almost all UK renal units, but scale and organization vary widely. Lack of common terminology and definitions hinders the development and assessment of CKM. Many survey respondents expressed support for further research comparing outcomes with conservative care versus dialysis.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Conservative kidney management (CKM) has been developed in the United Kingdom (UK) as an alternative to dialysis for older patients with stage 5 CKD (CKD5) and multiple comorbidities. This national survey sought to describe the current scale and pattern of delivery of conservative care in UK renal units and identify their priorities for its future development. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A survey on practice patterns of CKM for patients age 75 and older with CKD5 was sent to clinical directors of all 71 adult renal units in the UK in March 2013. RESULTS: Sixty-seven units (94%) responded. All but one unit reported providing CKM for some patients. Terminology varied, although "conservative management" was the most frequently used term (46%). Lack of an agreed-upon definition of when a patient is receiving CKM made it difficult to obtain meaningful data on the numbers of such patients. Fifty-two percent provided the number of CKM patients age ≥ 75 years in 2012; the median was 45 per unit (interquartile range [IQR], 20-83). The median number of symptomatic CKM patients who would otherwise have started dialysis was eight (IQR, 4.5-22). CKM practice patterns varied: 35% had a written guideline, 23% had dedicated CKM clinics, 45% had dedicated staff, and 50% provided staff training on CKM. Most units (88%) provided primary care clinicians with information/advice regarding CKM. Eighty percent identified a need for better evidence comparing outcomes on CKM versus dialysis, and 65% considered it appropriate to enter patients into a randomized trial. CONCLUSIONS: CKM is provided in almost all UK renal units, but scale and organization vary widely. Lack of common terminology and definitions hinders the development and assessment of CKM. Many survey respondents expressed support for further research comparing outcomes with conservative care versus dialysis.
Authors: Fliss E M Murtagh; James E Marsh; Paul Donohoe; Nasirul J Ekbal; Neil S Sheerin; Fiona E Harris Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2007-04-04 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Moniek W M van de Luijtgaarden; Marlies Noordzij; Wim van Biesen; Cecile Couchoud; Giovanni Cancarini; Willem-Jan W Bos; Friedo W Dekker; Jose L Gorriz; Christos Iatrou; Christoph Wanner; Patrik Finne; Olivera Stojceva-Taneva; Svjetlana Cala; Vianda S Stel; Charles Tomson; Kitty J Jager Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2013-09-07 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Manjula Kurella Tamura; Kenneth E Covinsky; Glenn M Chertow; Kristine Yaffe; C Seth Landefeld; Charles E McCulloch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Chun Keung Shum; Kui Fu Tam; Wai Leung Chak; Tuen Ching Chan; Ying Fai Mak; Ka Foon Chau Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-08-02 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Susan P Y Wong; Saritha Boyapati; Ruth A Engelberg; Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir; Janelle S Taylor; Ann M O'Hare Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Sarah Tonkin-Crine; Miriam Santer; Geraldine M Leydon; Fliss E M Murtagh; Ken Farrington; Fergus Caskey; Hugh Rayner; Paul Roderick Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Helen Tam-Tham; Kathryn M King-Shier; Chandra M Thomas; Robert R Quinn; Karen Fruetel; Sara N Davison; Brenda R Hemmelgarn Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Wim van Biesen; Moniek W M van de Luijtgaarden; Edwina A Brown; Jean-Pierre Michel; Barbara C van Munster; Kitty J Jager; Sabine N van der Veer Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Susan P Y Wong; Margaret K Yu; Pamela K Green; Chuan-Fen Liu; Paul L Hebert; Ann M O'Hare Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Roberto Pecoits-Filho; Ikechi G Okpechi; Jo-Ann Donner; David C H Harris; Harith M Aljubori; Aminu K Bello; Ezequiel Bellorin-Font; Fergus J Caskey; Allan Collins; Alfonso M Cueto-Manzano; John Feehally; Bak Leong Goh; Kitty J Jager; Masaomi Nangaku; Muhibur Rahman; Manisha Sahay; Abdulkarim Saleh; Laura Sola; Rumeyza Turan Kazancioglu; Rachael C Walker; Robert Walker; Qiang Yao; Xueqing Yu; Ming-Hui Zhao; David W Johnson Journal: Kidney Int Suppl (2011) Date: 2020-02-19
Authors: Susan P Y Wong; Lynne V McFarland; Chuan-Fen Liu; Ryan J Laundry; Paul L Hebert; Ann M O'Hare Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 21.873