Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Editorials
You have accessRestricted Access

Processes of Care and Reduced Mortality among Hemodialysis Patients in the United States

William McClellan
CJASN November 2010, 5 (11) 1905-1907; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.08520910
William McClellan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

A major accomplishment of clinical nephrology during the past 15 years has been the substantial improvement in the quality of ESRD care. The proportion of underdialyzed patients in the United States was reduced from >60 to <10% of hemodialysis (HD) patients (1) (www.cms.gov/CPMProject/). Additional improvements have been observed during the past decade in the use of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) (2). In turn, better HD care has been associated with decreasing mortality among both prevalent and incident patients with ESRD (3). The association between temporal trends in mortality and better care persists after accounting for changes in other case-mix factors, and Wolfe et al. (4) showed that each 10% increase in the proportion of patients who received adequate HD was associated with a 2.2% decrease in case mix–adjusted mortality rates. These observations about improved quality of care and reduced mortality reflect information provided by a comprehensive, population-based ESRD surveillance system and national registry, composed of 18 regional Networks and the US Renal Data System (5). This surveillance system routinely collects, analyzes, and disseminates information about the occurrence, treatment, and outcomes of ESRD in the US population. The information is used to plan, implement, and evaluate interventions to reduce the occurrence and improve outcomes of individuals with ESRD. Examples of quality improvement interventions are those conducted by the ESRD Networks. The Networks use continuous quality improvement (CQI) to foster transfer and adoption of evidence-based HD practices (6) by ESRD treatment facilities (7). These CQI interventions have been shown to contribute independently to improved care (8,9). This system of data-driven, patient-oriented quality improvement predates its use by the Networks (10), has been widely adopted, and is associated with improved HD care within individual HD systems (11). Demonstrated competence in the application of these improvement methods is a condition of recertification by the American Board of Internal Medicine (12). This experience illustrates how the adoption of best practices is translated into medical practice (13).

CQI assumes that variation in quality is inevitable and amenable to reduction (14,15). For nephrologists, it follows that, despite the marked improvement in care noted, variations in the quality of HD care can be expected despite the high levels of attained HD adequacy, anemia control, and AVF use in US HD populations. Recent reports in CJASN suggest otherwise.

The first report from Lacson et al. (16) applies the concept of “defect free” care (17) to HD. Defining defect-free care as the simultaneous attainment of multiple quality-of-care targets, they reported that individual patients rarely achieve high numbers of individual quality targets at any one time. They evaluated the incremental benefit of achieving up to eight quality-of-care goals among patients treated in >1000 treatment centers. As stated by Lacson et al., “We … hypothesized that efforts exerted by medical directors, physicians, and facility care takers to treat and educate individual patients to meet or exceed these targets will reflect on the overall facility-specific indicators and be associated with facility specific … mortality rate.” The treatment goals included presence of a venous catheter; adequacy of dialysis; AVF use; and serum albumin, hemoglobin, phosphorous, and bicarbonate levels.

Of note, only 8% of treatment centers approached defect-free care, achieving five or more quality goals per patient; 11% averaged fewer than two goals per patient. Higher number of goals per patient within a facility was associated with lower hospitalization rates and lower mortality (16). Similar results that the quality of overall adequate care is strongly associated with mortality and other outcomes have been reported by a number of other studies, and together these observations suggest that focusing on improving the attainment of multiple quality goals, striving to provide defect-free care, will benefit patients (18–22). The low attainment of defect-free HD care within ESRD treatment centers clearly represents an opportunity to improve care.

Defect-free care may be improved by physicians and staff through new ways of organizing and conducting care within HD treatment centers. An important report in this issue of CJASN by Spiegel and associates (23) suggests how “a coordinated, multidisciplinary environment” may be fostered. The authors reasoned that variations among treatment centers in nonpatient, environment-related factors might contribute to mortality differences. They previously developed an exhaustive survey to identify these factors, the Identifying Best Practices in Dialysis (IBPiD) survey (24). IBPiD collected information about 155 factors, including how treatment centers implement policies, staff attitudes toward the center, patterns of communication and coordination among staff members, and environmental attributes of the center.

The report from the IBPiD study examines the association between facility-specific factors and its standardized mortality ratio (SMR). The SMR is a measure of mortality that adjusts for patient characteristics. Spiegel et al. (23) used a 12-month running average of each facility's SMR reported by the US Renal Data System. Facilities were divided into two strata of low and high mortality, and IBPiD survey items that were associated with high mortality were identified. These factors included two related to center physician practice; three to dietician practice; and five to facility characteristics, policies, and practices. Multivariable models that included these IBPiD survey items and controlled for patient attributes found that five factors accounted for 31% of the variability in treatment center SMR: Timely multidisciplinary care conferences, dieticians who effectively addressed cultural issues in their diet prescription, and the presence of high-quality medical education programs. These are interesting and noteworthy results that warrant attention by those of us interested in improving the quality of HD care, including by promoting defect-free therapy.

First, before we can understand the contribution of facility-level attributes measured in the IBPiD survey to center outcomes, these findings require replication, ideally in other dialysis populations, to ensure that these observations are generalizable. Second, it would also be of interest to define in more detail what the individual factors actually measure, focusing on modifiable aspects of the survey constructs. Third, it would be important to determine the degree to which the association between the five risk factors and SMR persists after also accounting for adequacy of care measures. It is important to realize that many of these factors may be in the pathways responsible for achieving adequate care. Finally, multidisciplinary interventions to modify these attributes and to evaluate their impact on facility outcomes would be of enormous interest. The target of these interventions might be aggregate measures of defect-free adequacy of HD therapy as discussed.

In conclusion, it is encouraging that, as we move to the next generation of quality improvement in the ESRD system, new quality metrics and new concepts as to how to help clinicians address quality improvement are emerging. Although neither Spiegel et al. (23) and their work with the IBPiD study nor the continued demonstration of the benefits of defect-free care by Lacson et al. (16) can as yet be considered strong evidence, they are a clear demonstration of the continuing commitment by the nephrology community to understanding and addressing factors associated with less than satisfactory patient care and outcomes.

Disclosures

None.

Acknowledgments

This article is a direct result of the Health Care Quality Improvement Program initiated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which has encouraged identification of quality improvement projects derived from analysis of patterns of care, and therefore required no special funding on the part of this contractor. Ideas and contributions to the author concerning experience in engaging with issues presented are welcomed.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • The author assumes full responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the ideas presented. The conclusions in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. government.

  • See related article, “Dialysis Practices That Distinguish Facilities with Below- versus Above-Expected Mortality,” on pages 2024–2033.

  • Copyright © 2010 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. McClellan WM,
    2. Frankenfield DL,
    3. Frederick PR,
    4. Helgerson SD,
    5. Wish JB,
    6. Sugarman JR
    : Improving the care of ESRD patients: A success story. Health Care Financ Rev 24: 89–100, 2003
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Spergel LM
    : Has the Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative caused an increase in catheter prevalence? Semin Dial 21: 550–552, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    US Renal Data System: Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States, Bethesda, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 2009
  4. 4.↵
    1. Wolfe RA,
    2. Hulbert-Shearon TE,
    3. Ashby VB,
    4. Mahadevan S,
    5. Port FK
    : Improvements in dialysis patient mortality are associated with improvements in urea reduction ratio and hematocrit, 1999 to 2002. Am J Kidney Dis 45: 127–135, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. McClellan WM,
    2. Krisher JO
    : Collecting and using patient and treatment center data to improve care: Adequacy of hemodialysis and end-stage renal disease surveillance. Kidney Int 57: S7–S13, 2000
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    1. Sugarman JR,
    2. Frederick PR,
    3. Frankenfield DL,
    4. Owen WF Jr.,
    5. McClellan WM
    : Developing clinical performance measures based on the Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative Clinical Practice Guidelines: Process, outcomes, and implications. Am J Kidney Dis 42: 806–812, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Pastan S,
    2. Wish JB
    : Introduction: Continuous quality improvement in dialysis units. Adv Ren Replace Ther 8: 87–88, 2001
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Sehgal AR,
    2. Leon JB,
    3. Siminoff LA,
    4. Singer ME,
    5. Bunosky LM,
    6. Cebul RD
    : Improving the quality of hemodialysis treatment: A community-based randomized controlled trial to overcome patient-specific barriers. JAMA 287: 1961–1967, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. McClellan WM,
    2. Hodgin E,
    3. Pastan S,
    4. McAdams L,
    5. Soucie M
    : A randomized evaluation of two health care quality improvement program (HCQIP) interventions to improve the adequacy of hemodialysis care of ESRD patients: Feedback alone versus intensive intervention. J Am Soc Nephrol 15: 754–760, 2004
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Lowrie EG
    : Illustrating use of a clinical data system: The NMC-FMC System. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 4[Suppl 1]: S41–SS8, 2009
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Van Wyck D,
    2. Robertson J,
    3. Nissenson A,
    4. Provenzano R,
    5. Kogod D
    : Relationship among length of facility ownership, clinical performance, and mortality. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 248–251, 2010
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Wasserman SI,
    2. Kimball HR,
    3. Duffy FD,
    4. Recertification TF
    : Recertification in internal medicine: A program of continuous professional development. Ann Intern Med 133: 202–208, 2000
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Woolf SH
    : The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA 299: 211–213, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Jencks SF,
    2. Wilensky GR
    : The Health-Care Quality Improvement Initiative: A new approach to quality assurance in Medicare. JAMA 268: 900–903, 1992
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. McClellan W,
    2. Soucie JM,
    3. Krisher J
    : Improving the care of hemodialysis patients [Abstract]. J Am Soc Nephrol 8: A0942–A, 1997
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Lacson E Jr.,
    2. Wang W,
    3. Lazarus JM,
    4. Hakim RM
    : Hemodialysis facility-based quality-of-care indicators and facility-specific patient outcomes. Am J Kidney Dis 54: 490–497, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Hiratzka LF,
    2. Eagle KA,
    3. Liang L,
    4. Fonarow GC,
    5. LaBresh KA,
    6. Peterson ED
    Get With the Guidelines Steering Committee: Atherosclerosis secondary prevention performance measures after coronary bypass graft surgery compared with percutaneous catheter intervention and nonintervention patients in the get with the guidelines database. Circulation 116: I207–I12, 2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Rocco MV,
    2. Frankenfield DL,
    3. Hopson SD,
    4. McClellan WM
    : Relationship between clinical performance measures and outcomes among patients receiving long-term hemodialysis. Ann Intern Med 145: 512–519, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Tentori F,
    2. Hunt WC,
    3. Rohrscheib M,
    4. Zhu M,
    5. Stidley CA,
    6. Servilla K,
    7. Miskulin D,
    8. Meyer KB,
    9. Bedrick EJ,
    10. Johnson HK,
    11. Zager PG
    : Which targets in clinical practice guidelines are associated with improved survival in a large dialysis organization? J Am Soc Nephrol 18: 2377–2384, 2007
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Plantinga LC,
    2. Fink NE,
    3. Jaar BG,
    4. Sadler JH,
    5. Levin NW,
    6. Coresh J,
    7. Klag MJ,
    8. Powe NR
    : Attainment of clinical performance targets and improvement in clinical outcomes and resource use in hemodialysis care: A prospective cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res 7: 5, 2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Saudan P,
    2. Kossovsky M,
    3. Halabi G,
    4. Martin PY,
    5. Perneger TV
    Western Switzerland Dialysis Study Group: Quality of care and survival of haemodialysed patients in western Switzerland. Nephrol Dial Transplant 23: 1975–1981, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Slinin Y,
    2. Guo H,
    3. Gilbertson DT,
    4. Mau LW,
    5. Ensrud K,
    6. Rector T,
    7. Collins AJ,
    8. Ishani A
    : Meeting KDOQI guideline goals at hemodialysis initiation and survival during the first year. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 1574–1581, 2010
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Spiegel B,
    2. Bolus R,
    3. Desai AA,
    4. Zagar P,
    5. Parker T,
    6. Moran J,
    7. Solomon MD,
    8. Khawar O,
    9. Gitlin M,
    10. Talley J,
    11. Nissenson A
    : Dialysis practices that distinguish facilities with below- versus above-expected mortality. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 2024–2033, 2010
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Desai AA,
    2. Bolus R,
    3. Nissenson A,
    4. Bolus S,
    5. Solomon MD,
    6. Khawar O,
    7. Gitlin M,
    8. Talley J,
    9. Spiegel BM
    : Identifying best practices in dialysis care: Results of cognitive interviews and a national survey of dialysis providers. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 3: 1066–1076, 2008
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 5, Issue 11
1 Nov 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Processes of Care and Reduced Mortality among Hemodialysis Patients in the United States
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Processes of Care and Reduced Mortality among Hemodialysis Patients in the United States
William McClellan
CJASN Nov 2010, 5 (11) 1905-1907; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.08520910

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Processes of Care and Reduced Mortality among Hemodialysis Patients in the United States
William McClellan
CJASN Nov 2010, 5 (11) 1905-1907; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.08520910
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Telehealth and Kidney Disease Care
  • Time to Abandon Kidney Biopsy to Diagnose Membranous Nephropathy?
  • Should We Let Dialysis Patients Eat Their Fruits and Veggies?
Show more Editorials

Cited By...

  • Mandating Staffing Ratios in Hemodialysis Facilities: California SB 349 and Unintended Consequences
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • Dialysis Practices That Distinguish Facilities with Below- versus Above-Expected Mortality
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe to ASN Journals

© 2022 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire