Barriers to successful implementation of care in home haemodialysis (BASIC-HHD):1. Study design, methods and rationale

BMC Nephrology

Sandip Mitra⁴  James Barlow¹  Steffen Bayer¹  Inger Abma¹  Paul Brenchley⁴  Julie Morris²  Alison J Wearden³  Anuradha Jayanti⁴ 

[1] HaCIRIC, Imperial College Business School, London SW7 2AZ, UK;Department of Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester M23 9LT, UK;School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK;Department of Nephrology, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester M13 9WL, UK

关键词: Quality of life;    Adoption;    Organisation;    Qualitative;    Mixed methods;    Home haemodialysis;    Barriers;   

Others  :  1082842
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2369-14-197

 received in 2013-07-05, accepted in 2013-09-03,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Ten years on from the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence’ technology appraisal guideline on haemodialysis in 2002; the clinical community is yet to rise to the challenge of providing home haemodialysis (HHD) to 10-15% of the dialysis cohort. The renal registry report, suggests underutilization of a treatment type that has had a lot of research interest and several publications worldwide on its apparent benefit for both physical and mental health of patients. An understanding of the drivers to introducing and sustaining the modality, from organizational, economic, clinical and patient perspectives is fundamental to realizing the full benefits of the therapy with the potential to provide evidence base for effective care models. Through the BASIC-HHD study, we seek to understand the clinical, patient and carer related psychosocial, economic and organisational determinants of successful uptake and maintenance of home haemodialysis and thereby, engage all major stakeholders in the process.

Design and methods

We have adopted an integrated mixed methodology (convergent, parallel design) for this study. The study arms include a. patient; b. organization; c. carer and d. economic evaluation. The three patient study cohorts (n = 500) include pre-dialysis patients (200), hospital haemodialysis (200) and home haemodialysis patients (100) from geographically distinct NHS sites, across the country and with variable prevalence of home haemodialysis. The pre-dialysis patients will also be prospectively followed up for a period of 12 months from study entry to understand their journey to renal replacement therapy and subsequently, before and after studies will be carried out for a select few who do commence dialysis in the study period. The process will entail quantitative methods and ethnographic interviews of all groups in the study. Data collection will involve clinical and biomarkers, psychosocial quantitative assessments and neuropsychometric tests in patients. Organizational attitudes and dialysis unit practices will be studied together with perceptions of healthcare providers on provision of home HD. Economic evaluation of home and hospital haemodialysis practices will also be undertaken and we will apply scenario ("what … if") analysis using system dynamics modeling to investigate the impact of different policy choices and financial models on dialysis technology adoption, care pathways and costs. Less attention is often given to the patient’s carers who provide informal support, often of a complex nature to patients afflicted by chronic ailments such as end stage kidney disease. Engaging the carers is fundamental to realizing the full benefits of a complex, home-based intervention and a qualitative study of the carers will be undertaken to elicit their fears, concerns and perception of home HD before and after patient’s commencement of the treatment. The data sets will be analysed independently and the findings will be mixed at the stage of interpretation to form a coherent message that will be informing practice in the future.

Discussion

The BASIC-HHD study is designed to assemble pivotal information on dialysis modality choice and uptake, investigating users, care-givers and care delivery processes and study their variation in a multi-layered analytical approach within a single health care system. The study results would define modality specific service and patient pathway redesign.

Study Registration

This study has been reviewed and approved by the Greater Manchester West Health Research Authority National Research Ethics Service (NRES) The study is on the NIHR (CLRN) portfolio.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Jayanti et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Levey AS, Atkins R, Coresh J, Cohen EP, Collins AJ, Eckardt K-U, Nahas ME, Jaber BL, Jadoul M, Levin A, Powe NR, Rossert J, Wheeler DC, Lameire N, Eknoyan G: Chronic kidney disease as a global public health problem: approaches and initiatives - a position statement from Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes. Kidney Int 2007, 72(3):247-259.
• [2]Obrador GT, Mahdavi-Mazdeh M, Collins AJ: Establishing the Global Kidney Disease Prevention Network (KDPN): a position statement from the National Kidney Foundation. Am J Kidney Dis 2011, 57(3):361-370.
• [3]UKRR 2006 to 2012- http://www.renalreg.com/
• [4]Pauly RP, Maximova K, Coppens J, Asad RA, Pierratos A, Komenda P, Copland M, Nesrallah GE, Levin A, Chery A, Chan CT, on behalf of the C.-S. C. Group: Patient and Technique Survival among a Canadian Multicenter Nocturnal Home Hemodialysis Cohort. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2010, 5(10):1815-1820.
• [5]Department of Health: Research evidence in self-care support. Crown Copyright; 2007.
• [6]Mowatt G, Vale L, Perez J, Wyness L, Fraser C, MacLeod A, Daly C, Stearns SC: Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation, of home versus hospital or satellite unit haemodialysis for people with end-stage renal failure. Health Technol Assess 2003, 7(2):1-174.
• [7]Howard K, Salkeld G, White S, McDonald S, Chadban S, Craig JC, Cass A: The cost-effectiveness of increasing kidney transplantation and home-based dialysis. Nephrology (Carlton) 2009, 14(1):123-132.
• [8]Parsons DS, Harris DC: A review of quality of life in chronic renal failure. Pharmacoeconomics 1997, 12(2 Pt 1):140-160.
• [9]MacGregor MS, Agar JWM, Blagg CR: Home haemodialysis-international trends and variation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006, 21(7):1934-1945.
• [10]Caskey FJ, Roderick P, Steenkamp R, Nitsch D, Thomas K, Ansell D, Feest T: Social deprivation and survival on renal replacement therapy in England and Wales. Kidney Int 2006, 70(12):2134-2140.
• [11]Lameire N, Wauters J-P, Teruel JLG, Van Biesen W, Vanholder R: An update on the referral pattern of patients with end-stage renal disease. Kidney Int Suppl 2002, (80):27-34.
• [12]Goovaerts T, Jadoul M, Goffin E: Influence of a pre-dialysis education programme (PDEP) on the mode of renal replacement therapy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005, 20(9):1842-1847.
• [13]Little J, Irwin A, Marshall T, Rayner H, Smith S: Predicting a patient’s choice of dialysis modality: experience in a United Kingdom renal department. Am J Kidney Dis 2001, 37(5):981-986.
• [14]Marrón B, Martínez Ocaña JC, Salgueira M, Barril G, Lamas JM, Martín M, Sierra T, Rodríguez-Carmona A, Soldevilla A, Martínez F: Analysis of patient flow into dialysis: role of education in choice of dialysis modality. Perit Dial Int 2005, 25 Suppl 3, no. August 2004:S56-S59.
• [15]Golper TA, Saxena AB, Piraino B, Teitelbaum I, Burkart J, Finkelstein FO, Abu-Alfa A: Systematic Barriers to the effective delivery of home dialysis in the United States: a report from the public policy/advocacy committee of the North American Chapter of the International Society for peritoneal dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2011, 58(6):879-885.
• [16]Ludlow MJ, George CR, Hawley CM, Mathew TH, Agar JW, Kerr PG, Lauder LA: How Australian nephrologists view home dialysis: results of a national survey. Nephrology (Carlton) 2011, 16(4):446-452.
• [17]Mehrotra R, Marsh D, Vonesh E, Peters V, Nissenson A: Patient education and access of ESRD patients to renal replacement therapies beyond in-center hemodialysis. Kidney Int 2005, 68(1):378-390.
• [18]Durand-Zaleski I, Combe C, Lang P: International Study of Health Care Organization and Financing for end-stage renal disease in France. Int J Health Care Finance Econ 2007, 7(2–3):171-183.
• [19]Nesrallah G, Mendelssohn DC: Modality options for renal replacement therapy: the integrated care concept revisited. Hemodial Int 2006, 10(2):143-151.
• [20]Thamer M, Hwang W, Fink NE, Sadler JH, Wills S, Levin NW, Bass EB, Levey AS, Brookmeyer R, Powe NR: US nephrologists’ recommendation of dialysis modality: results of a national survey. 2000.
• [21]McLaughlin K, Manns B, Mortis G, Hons R, Taub K: Why patients with ESRD do not select self-care dialysis as a treatment option. Am J Kidney Dis Feb. 2003, 41(2):380-385.
• [22]Ledebo I: What limits the expansion of self-care dialysis at home? Hemodial Int 2008, 12 Suppl 1:S55-S60.
• [23]Maunder RG, Hunter JJ: Assessing patterns of adult attachment in medical patients. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2009, 31(2):123-130.
• [24]Ende J, Kazis L, Ash A, Moskowitz MA: Measuring patients’ desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients. J Gen Intern Med 1989, 4(1):23-30.
• [25]Lowrie EG, Curtin RB, LePain N, Schatell D: Medical outcomes study short form-36: a consistent and powerful predictor of morbidity and mortality in dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2003, 41(6):1286-1292.
• [26]Meyer KB, Espindle DM, DeGiacomo JM, Jenuleson CS, Kurtin PS, Davies AR: Monitoring dialysis patients’ health status. Am J Kidney Dis 1994, 24(2):267-279.
• [27]Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B: SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993. p. 1 v. (various pagings)
• [28]Kimmel PL, Cukor D, Cohen SD, Peterson RA: Depression in end-stage renal disease patients: a critical review. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 2007, 14(4):328-334.
• [29]Smith MD, Hong BA, Robson AM: Diagnosis of depression in patients with end-stage renal disease. Comparative analysis. Am J Med 1985, 79(2):160-166.
• [30]Craven JL, Rodin GM, Littlefield C: The Beck Depression Inventory as a screening device for major depression in renal dialysis patients. Int J Psychiatry Med 1988, 18(4):365-374.
• [31]Hedayati SS, Bosworth HB, Briley LP, Sloane RJ, Pieper CF, Kimmel PL, Szczech LA: Death or hospitalization of patients on chronic hemodialysis is associated with a physician-based diagnosis of depression. Kidney Int 2008, 74(7):861-862.
• [32]Hedayati SS, Minhajuddin AT, Toto RD, Morris DW, Rush AJ: Validation of depression screening scales in patients with CKD. Am J Kidney Dis 2009, 54(3):433-439.
• [33]Spielberger CD: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Anxiety 1987, 19:2009.
• [34]Moss-Morris R, Weinman J, Petrie KJ, Horne R, Cameron L, Buick D: The Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R). Psychology Health 2002, 17(1):1-16.
• [35]Chilcot J, Wellsted D, Farrington K: Screening for depression while patients dialyse: an evaluation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008, 23(8):2653-2659.
• [36]Chilcot J: The importance of illness perception in end-stage renal disease: associations with psychosocial and clinical outcomes. Semin Dial 2012, 25(1):59-64.
• [37]Lachman ME, Andreoletti C, Pearman A: Memory control beliefs: how are they related to age, strategy use and memory improvement ? Strategy 2006, 24(3):359-385.
• [38]Levy B: Improving memory in old age through implicit self-stereotyping. American Psychological Association; 1996.
• [39]Hertzog C, Hultsch DF: Metacognition in adulthood and old age. In The handbook of aging and cognition, vol. 2, F. I. M. Craik and T. A. Salthouse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2000:417-466.
• [40]Klusmann V, Evers A, Schwarzer R, Heuser I: A brief questionnaire on metacognition: psychometric properties. Aging Mental Health 2011, 15(8):1052-1062.
• [41]Scott T, Mannion R, Davies H, Marshall M: The quantitative measurement of organizational culture in health care: a review of the available instruments. Health Serv Res 2003, 38(3):923-945.
• [42]Cooke RA, Rousseau DM, Lafferty JC: Thinking and behavioral styles: Consistency between self-descriptions and descriptions by others. Educ Psychol Meas 1987, 47(3):815-823.
• [43]Hall B, Howard K: A synergistic approach: conducting mixed methods research with typological and systemic design considerations. J Mixed Methods Res 2008, 2(3):248-269.
• [44]Bryman A: Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how it is done? Qual Res 2006, 6(1):97-113.
• [45]Teddlie C, Tashakkori A: Foundations of mixed methods research:Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioural sciences. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage publications; 2009.
• [46]Morse JM: Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nurs Res 1991, 40:120-123.
• [47]Hayes B, Bonner A, Douglas C: An introduction to mixed methods research for nephrology nurses. Ren Soc Australasia J 2013, 9(1):8-14.
• [48]Ham C: Learning from the NHS internal market: a review of the evidence. BMJ 1999, 318(7182):543.