Carlijn G N Voorend1, Noeleen C Berkhout-Byrne2, Yvette Meuleman3, Simon P Mooijaart4, Willem Jan W Bos2,5, Marjolijn van Buren2,6. 1. Department of Internal Medicine (Nephrology), Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands. c.g.n.voorend@lumc.nl. 2. Department of Internal Medicine (Nephrology), Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Nephrology, Haga Hospital, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) often live with unidentified frailty and multimorbidity. Despite guideline recommendations, geriatric assessment is not part of standard clinical care, resulting in a missed opportunity to enhance (clinical) outcomes including quality of life in these patients. To develop routine geriatric assessment programs for patients approaching ESKD, it is crucial to understand patients' and professionals' experiences with and perspectives about the benefits, facilitators and barriers for geriatric assessment. METHODS: In this qualitative study, semi-structured focus group discussions were conducted with ESKD patients, caregivers and professionals. Participants were purposively sampled from three Dutch hospital-based study- and routine care initiatives involving geriatric assessment for (pre-)ESKD care. Transcripts were analysed inductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: In six focus-groups, participants (n = 47) demonstrated four major themes: (1) Perceived characteristics of the older (pre)ESKD patient group. Patients and professionals recognized increased vulnerability and (cognitive) comorbidity, which is often unrelated to calendar age. Both believed that often patients are in need of additional support in various geriatric domains. (2) Experiences with geriatric assessment. Patients regarded the content and the time spent on the geriatric assessment predominantly positive. Professionals emphasized that assessment creates awareness among the whole treatment team for cognitive and social problems, shifting the focus from mainly somatic to multidimensional problems. Outcomes of geriatric assessment were observed to enhance a dialogue on suitability of treatment options, (re)adjust treatment and provide/seek additional (social) support. (3) Barriers and facilitators for implementation of geriatric assessment in routine care. Discussed barriers included lack of communication about goals and interpretation of geriatric assessment, burden for patients, illiteracy, and organizational aspects. Major facilitators are good multidisciplinary cooperation, involvement of geriatrics and multidisciplinary team meetings. (4) Desired characteristics of a suitable geriatric assessment concerned the scope and use of tests and timing of assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and professionals were positive about using geriatric assessment in routine nephrology care. Implementation seems achievable, once barriers are overcome and facilitators are endorsed. Geriatric assessment in routine care appears promising to improve (clinical) outcomes in patients approaching ESKD.
BACKGROUND: Older patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) often live with unidentified frailty and multimorbidity. Despite guideline recommendations, geriatric assessment is not part of standard clinical care, resulting in a missed opportunity to enhance (clinical) outcomes including quality of life in these patients. To develop routine geriatric assessment programs for patients approaching ESKD, it is crucial to understand patients' and professionals' experiences with and perspectives about the benefits, facilitators and barriers for geriatric assessment. METHODS: In this qualitative study, semi-structured focus group discussions were conducted with ESKD patients, caregivers and professionals. Participants were purposively sampled from three Dutch hospital-based study- and routine care initiatives involving geriatric assessment for (pre-)ESKD care. Transcripts were analysed inductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: In six focus-groups, participants (n = 47) demonstrated four major themes: (1) Perceived characteristics of the older (pre)ESKD patient group. Patients and professionals recognized increased vulnerability and (cognitive) comorbidity, which is often unrelated to calendar age. Both believed that often patients are in need of additional support in various geriatric domains. (2) Experiences with geriatric assessment. Patients regarded the content and the time spent on the geriatric assessment predominantly positive. Professionals emphasized that assessment creates awareness among the whole treatment team for cognitive and social problems, shifting the focus from mainly somatic to multidimensional problems. Outcomes of geriatric assessment were observed to enhance a dialogue on suitability of treatment options, (re)adjust treatment and provide/seek additional (social) support. (3) Barriers and facilitators for implementation of geriatric assessment in routine care. Discussed barriers included lack of communication about goals and interpretation of geriatric assessment, burden for patients, illiteracy, and organizational aspects. Major facilitators are good multidisciplinary cooperation, involvement of geriatrics and multidisciplinary team meetings. (4) Desired characteristics of a suitable geriatric assessment concerned the scope and use of tests and timing of assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and professionals were positive about using geriatric assessment in routine nephrology care. Implementation seems achievable, once barriers are overcome and facilitators are endorsed. Geriatric assessment in routine care appears promising to improve (clinical) outcomes in patients approaching ESKD.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chronic kidney failure; Decision making, shared; ESRD; Focus groups; Frail older adults; Geriatric assessment; Qualitative research; Quality of life
Authors: A M Murray; D E Tupper; D S Knopman; D T Gilbertson; S L Pederson; S Li; G E Smith; A K Hochhalter; A J Collins; R L Kane Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-07-25 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Suetonia Palmer; Mariacristina Vecchio; Jonathan C Craig; Marcello Tonelli; David W Johnson; Antonio Nicolucci; Fabio Pellegrini; Valeria Saglimbene; Giancarlo Logroscino; Steven Fishbane; Giovanni F M Strippoli Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Marije H Kallenberg; Hilda A Kleinveld; Friedo W Dekker; Barbara C van Munster; Ton J Rabelink; Marjolijn van Buren; Simon P Mooijaart Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Ismay N van Loon; Tom R Wouters; Franciscus T J Boereboom; Michiel L Bots; Marianne C Verhaar; Marije E Hamaker Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Juliette L Parlevliet; Bianca M Buurman; Marja M Hodac Pannekeet; Els M Boeschoten; Lucia ten Brinke; Marije E Hamaker; Barbara C van Munster; Sophia E de Rooij Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Hannah M L Young; Nicki Ruddock; Mary Harrison; Samantha Goodliffe; Courtney J Lightfoot; Juliette Mayes; Andrew C Nixon; Sharlene A Greenwood; Simon Conroy; Sally J Singh; James O Burton; Alice C Smith; Helen Eborall Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2022-07-22 Impact factor: 2.585
Authors: Carlijn G N Voorend; Hanneke Joosten; Noeleen C Berkhout-Byrne; Adry Diepenbroek; Casper F M Franssen; Willem Jan W Bos; Marjolijn Van Buren; Simon P Mooijaart Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2021-04-19 Impact factor: 1.710