Natalie C Ernecoff1, Alexandra E Bursic2, Erica M Motter3, Keith Lagnese4, Robert Taylor5, Jane O Schell6,3. 1. RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Renal-Electrolyte Division, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Prospero Health, Memphis, Tennessee. 5. Dialysis Clinic, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee. 6. Renal-Electrolyte Division, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania schelljo@upmc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compared with the general Medicare population, patients with ESKD have worse quality metrics for end-of-life care, including a higher percentage experiencing hospitalizations and in-hospital deaths and a lower percentage referred to hospice. We developed a Concurrent Hospice and Dialysis Program in which patients may receive palliative dialysis alongside hospice services. The Program aims to improve access to quality end-of-life care and, ultimately, improve the experiences of patients, caregivers, and clinicians. OBJECTIVES: We sought to describe (1) the Program and (2) enrollment and utilization characteristics of Program participants. METHODS: We conducted a quantitative description of demographics, patient characteristics, and utilization of Program enrollees. RESULTS: Of 43 total enrollees, 44% received at least one dialysis treatment, whereas 56% received no dialysis. The median (range) hospice length of stay was 9 (1-76) days for all participants and 13 (4-76) days for those who received at least one dialysis treatment. The average number of dialysis treatments was 3.5 (range 1-9) for hemodialysis and 19.2 (range 3-65) for peritoneal dialysis. Sixty-five percent of enrollees died at home, 23% in inpatient hospice, and 12% in a nursing facility; no patients died in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Our 3-year experience with the Program demonstrated that enrollees had a longer median hospice stay than the previously reported 5-day median for patients with ESKD. Most patients received no further dialysis treatments despite the option to continue dialysis. Our experience provides evidence to support future work testing the effectiveness of such clinical programs to improve patient and utilization outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Compared with the general Medicare population, patients with ESKD have worse quality metrics for end-of-life care, including a higher percentage experiencing hospitalizations and in-hospital deaths and a lower percentage referred to hospice. We developed a Concurrent Hospice and Dialysis Program in which patients may receive palliative dialysis alongside hospice services. The Program aims to improve access to quality end-of-life care and, ultimately, improve the experiences of patients, caregivers, and clinicians. OBJECTIVES: We sought to describe (1) the Program and (2) enrollment and utilization characteristics of Program participants. METHODS: We conducted a quantitative description of demographics, patient characteristics, and utilization of Program enrollees. RESULTS: Of 43 total enrollees, 44% received at least one dialysis treatment, whereas 56% received no dialysis. The median (range) hospice length of stay was 9 (1-76) days for all participants and 13 (4-76) days for those who received at least one dialysis treatment. The average number of dialysis treatments was 3.5 (range 1-9) for hemodialysis and 19.2 (range 3-65) for peritoneal dialysis. Sixty-five percent of enrollees died at home, 23% in inpatient hospice, and 12% in a nursing facility; no patients died in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Our 3-year experience with the Program demonstrated that enrollees had a longer median hospice stay than the previously reported 5-day median for patients with ESKD. Most patients received no further dialysis treatments despite the option to continue dialysis. Our experience provides evidence to support future work testing the effectiveness of such clinical programs to improve patient and utilization outcomes.
Authors: Claire A Richards; Chuan-Fen Liu; Paul L Hebert; Mary Ersek; Melissa W Wachterman; Lynn F Reinke; Leslie L Taylor; Ann M O'Hare Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-08-29 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Amy S Kelley; Partha Deb; Qingling Du; Melissa D Aldridge Carlson; R Sean Morrison Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Melissa W Wachterman; Corey Pilver; Dawn Smith; Mary Ersek; Stuart R Lipsitz; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Vanessa Grubbs; Alvin H Moss; Lewis M Cohen; Michael J Fischer; Michael J Germain; S Vanita Jassal; Jeffrey Perl; Daniel E Weiner; Rajnish Mehrotra Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 8.237
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: Melissa W Wachterman; Susan M Hailpern; Nancy L Keating; Manjula Kurella Tamura; Ann M O'Hare Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 21.873