Keren Ladin1,2, Naomi Lin1,2, Emily Hahn2, Gregory Zhang2, Susan Koch-Weser3, Daniel E Weiner4. 1. Department of Occupational Therapy, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA. 2. Research on Aging, Ethics, and Community Health, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA. 3. Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although shared decision-making (SDM) can better align patient preferences with treatment, barriers remain incompletely understood and the impact on patient satisfaction is unknown. METHODS: This is a qualitative study with semistructured interviews. A purposive sample of prevalent dialysis patients ≥65 years of age at two facilities in Greater Boston were selected for diversity in time from initiation, race, modality and vintage. A codebook was developed and interrater reliability was 89%. Codes were discussed and organized into themes. RESULTS: A total of 31 interviews with 23 in-center hemodialysis patients, 1 home hemodialysis patient and 7 peritoneal dialysis patients were completed. The mean age was 76 ± 9 years. Two dominant themes (with related subthemes) emerged: decision-making experiences and satisfaction, and barriers to SDM. Subthemes included negative versus positive decision-making experiences, struggling for autonomy, being a 'good patient' and lack of choice. In spite of believing that dialysis initiation should be the patient's choice, no patients perceived that they had made a choice. Patients explained that this is due to the perception of imminent death or that the decision to start dialysis belonged to physicians. Clinicians and family frequently overrode patient preferences, with patient autonomy honored mostly to select dialysis modality. Poor decision-making experiences were associated with low treatment satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recommendations for SDM, many older patients were unaware that dialysis initiation was voluntary, held mistaken beliefs about their prognosis and were not engaged in decision-making, resulting in poor satisfaction. Patients desired greater information, specifically focusing on the acuity of their choice, prognosis and goals of care.
BACKGROUND: Although shared decision-making (SDM) can better align patient preferences with treatment, barriers remain incompletely understood and the impact on patient satisfaction is unknown. METHODS: This is a qualitative study with semistructured interviews. A purposive sample of prevalent dialysis patients ≥65 years of age at two facilities in Greater Boston were selected for diversity in time from initiation, race, modality and vintage. A codebook was developed and interrater reliability was 89%. Codes were discussed and organized into themes. RESULTS: A total of 31 interviews with 23 in-center hemodialysis patients, 1 home hemodialysis patient and 7 peritoneal dialysis patients were completed. The mean age was 76 ± 9 years. Two dominant themes (with related subthemes) emerged: decision-making experiences and satisfaction, and barriers to SDM. Subthemes included negative versus positive decision-making experiences, struggling for autonomy, being a 'good patient' and lack of choice. In spite of believing that dialysis initiation should be the patient's choice, no patients perceived that they had made a choice. Patients explained that this is due to the perception of imminent death or that the decision to start dialysis belonged to physicians. Clinicians and family frequently overrode patient preferences, with patient autonomy honored mostly to select dialysis modality. Poor decision-making experiences were associated with low treatment satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recommendations for SDM, many older patients were unaware that dialysis initiation was voluntary, held mistaken beliefs about their prognosis and were not engaged in decision-making, resulting in poor satisfaction. Patients desired greater information, specifically focusing on the acuity of their choice, prognosis and goals of care.
Authors: Rachael C Walker; Camilla S Hanson; Suetonia C Palmer; Kirsten Howard; Rachael L Morton; Mark R Marshall; Allison Tong Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2015-01-10 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Mae Thamer; James S Kaufman; Yi Zhang; Qian Zhang; Dennis J Cotter; Heejung Bang Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Melissa W Wachterman; Edward R Marcantonio; Roger B Davis; Robert A Cohen; Sushrut S Waikar; Russell S Phillips; Ellen P McCarthy Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Fahad Saeed; Susan A Ladwig; Ronald M Epstein; Rebeca D Monk; Paul R Duberstein Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-06-04 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Christopher J Zimmermann; Roy A Jhagroo; Maureen Wakeen; Kathryn Schueller; Amy Zelenski; Jennifer L Tucholka; Daniel A Fox; Nathan D Baggett; Anne Buffington; Toby C Campbell; Sara K Johnson; Margaret L Schwarze Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Keren Ladin; Renuka Pandya; Allison Kannam; Rohini Loke; Tira Oskoui; Ronald D Perrone; Klemens B Meyer; Daniel E Weiner; John B Wong Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Devika Nair; Maie El-Sourady; Kemberlee Bonnet; David G Schlundt; Joseph B Fanning; Mohana B Karlekar Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Keren Ladin; Renuka Pandya; Ronald D Perrone; Klemens B Meyer; Allison Kannam; Rohini Loke; Tira Oskoui; Daniel E Weiner; John B Wong Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 8.237
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
Authors: Sarah J Ramer; Natalie N McCall; Cassianne Robinson-Cohen; Edward D Siew; Huzaifah Salat; Aihua Bian; Thomas G Stewart; Maie H El-Sourady; Mohana Karlekar; Loren Lipworth; T Alp Ikizler; Khaled Abdel-Kader Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 10.121