Daniel A Sturgill1, Naveet Bal1, Sneha Nagavally2, Dawn F Wolfgram1. 1. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Center for Advancing Population Science, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The impact of achieving hemodialysis laboratory and hemodynamic quality metrics on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine if meeting dialysis laboratory quality of care measures is associated with improved PROs. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we measured the relationship between dialysis patients' Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores and commonly used dialysis quality of care measures. RESULTS: PROMIS surveys were administered to 92 dialysis patients. The mean ± SD scores demonstrated higher fatigue (55.0 ± 9.8) and lower physical function (37.9 ± 7.9) but similar cognition (50.3 ± 10.9) compared to general population normative scores of 50 ± 10. Dialysis patients meeting Kt/V goals had no better scores than those who did not. Meeting the hemoglobin (Hgb) value of ≥10 g/dL was associated with a lower fatigue score, but no difference in cognitive or physical function scores. Meeting the serum albumin goal of ≥4.0 mg/dL was associated with a higher physical function score but made no difference for cognitive function or fatigue score. As a continuous variable, a higher Hgb was associated with lower reported fatigue (HR -1.74 95%, CI [-3.09, -0.39]), but no other measures were associated with PRO scores when adjusted for demographics and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: We found little association between measures currently used to assess the quality of dialysis care and PROs. Encouraging improved utilization of PROs and incorporating PROs into quality measurements might give a more robust assessment of quality of care. Future studies should assess the benefits of this approach.
INTRODUCTION: The impact of achieving hemodialysis laboratory and hemodynamic quality metrics on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine if meeting dialysis laboratory quality of care measures is associated with improved PROs. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we measured the relationship between dialysis patients' Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores and commonly used dialysis quality of care measures. RESULTS: PROMIS surveys were administered to 92 dialysis patients. The mean ± SD scores demonstrated higher fatigue (55.0 ± 9.8) and lower physical function (37.9 ± 7.9) but similar cognition (50.3 ± 10.9) compared to general population normative scores of 50 ± 10. Dialysis patients meeting Kt/V goals had no better scores than those who did not. Meeting the hemoglobin (Hgb) value of ≥10 g/dL was associated with a lower fatigue score, but no difference in cognitive or physical function scores. Meeting the serum albumin goal of ≥4.0 mg/dL was associated with a higher physical function score but made no difference for cognitive function or fatigue score. As a continuous variable, a higher Hgb was associated with lower reported fatigue (HR -1.74 95%, CI [-3.09, -0.39]), but no other measures were associated with PRO scores when adjusted for demographics and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: We found little association between measures currently used to assess the quality of dialysis care and PROs. Encouraging improved utilization of PROs and incorporating PROs into quality measurements might give a more robust assessment of quality of care. Future studies should assess the benefits of this approach.
Authors: Jeffrey Perl; Laura M Dember; Joanne M Bargman; Teri Browne; David M Charytan; Jennifer E Flythe; LaTonya J Hickson; Adriana M Hung; Michel Jadoul; Timmy Chang Lee; Klemens B Meyer; Hamid Moradi; Tariq Shafi; Isaac Teitelbaum; Leslie P Wong; Christopher T Chan Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Shuchi Anand; Glenn M Chertow; Kirsten L Johansen; Barbara Grimes; Manjula Kurella Tamura; Lorien S Dalrymple; George A Kaysen Journal: J Ren Nutr Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 3.655
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: Karon F Cook; Sally E Jensen; Benjamin D Schalet; Jennifer L Beaumont; Dagmar Amtmann; Susan Czajkowski; Darren A Dewalt; James F Fries; Paul A Pilkonis; Bryce B Reeve; Arthur A Stone; Kevin P Weinfurt; David Cella Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Donna L Mapes; Antonio Alberto Lopes; Sudtida Satayathum; Keith P McCullough; David A Goodkin; Francesco Locatelli; Shunichi Fukuhara; Eric W Young; Kiyoshi Kurokawa; Akira Saito; Jürgen Bommer; Robert A Wolfe; Philip J Held; Friedrich K Port Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Garabed Eknoyan; Gerald J Beck; Alfred K Cheung; John T Daugirdas; Tom Greene; John W Kusek; Michael Allon; James Bailey; James A Delmez; Thomas A Depner; Johanna T Dwyer; Andrew S Levey; Nathan W Levin; Edgar Milford; Daniel B Ornt; Michael V Rocco; Gerald Schulman; Steve J Schwab; Brendan P Teehan; Robert Toto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-12-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jing Zhang; Barry Dewitt; Evan Tang; Daniel Breitner; Mohammed Saqib; Dan Li; Rabail Siddiqui; Nathaniel Edwards; John Devin Peipert; Ron D Hays; Janel Hanmer; Istvan Mucsi Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 10.614