Skip to main content

Main menu

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

Dialysis at a Crossroads—Part II: A Call for Action

Thomas F. Parker, Barry M. Straube, Allen Nissenson, Raymond M. Hakim, Theodore I. Steinman and Richard J. Glassock
CJASN June 2012, 7 (6) 1026-1032; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.11381111
Thomas F. Parker III
*Department of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, Dallas, Texas;
†Renal Ventures Management, Lakewood, Colorado;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barry M. Straube
‡The Marwood Group, New York, New York;
§Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Allen Nissenson
‖Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California;
¶DaVita, El Segundo, California;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Raymond M. Hakim
**Clinical and Scientific Affairs, Fresenius Medical Care–North America, Brentwood, Tennessee;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Theodore I. Steinman
††Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard J. Glassock
‡‡Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Laguna Niguel, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Summary

A previous commentary pointed out that the renal community has led American healthcare in the development and continuous improvement of quality outcomes. However, survival, hospitalization, and quality of life for US dialysis patients is still not optimal. This follow-up commentary examines the obstacles, gaps, and metrics that characterize this unfortunate state of affairs. It posits that current paradigms are essential contributors to quality outcomes but are no longer sufficient to improve quality. New strategies are needed that arise from a preponderance of evidence, in addition to beyond a reasonable doubt standard. This work offers an action plan that consists of new pathways of care that will lead to improved survival, fewer hospitalizations and rehospitalizations, and better quality of life for patients undergoing dialysis therapy. Nephrologists in collaboration with large and small dialysis organizations and other stakeholders, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, can implement these proposed new pathways of care and closely monitor their effectiveness. We suggest that our patients deserve nothing less and must receive even more.

Introduction, Scope, and Purpose

The purpose of this commentary is to outline new pathways of care to achieve improved outcomes for patients with ESRD treated by dialysis. Minor adjustments to 30+-year-old practices, refining acceptable limits of biochemical markers or mathematical formulas, and blaming reimbursement policies for the agonizingly slow pace of improvements in such care will not materially transform outcomes.

Previously, we have suggested that the care for patients with ESRD was at a crossroads, traveling on the same path for 50 years with historic achievements but now seemingly unable to bring about changes needed for patient-centered outcomes to reach their full potential (1). In this follow-up commentary, the obstacles, gaps, and metrics that characterize our situation are critically examined. Workable remedies are proposed that potentially could energize new pathways of care and lead to better outcomes for patients at less or equivalent cost—a value-based proposition for ESRD care. Our position is simple—in the current reimbursement environment, savings would result from a reduction in hospitalizations and rehospitalization; clearly, the result is Part A Medicare savings over Part B. In the emerging models of reimbursement, there will be more of an alignment of these savings across categories of care.

The issues that loom large in this discussion include (1) high and relatively unchanged hospitalization rates for ESRD patients for over two decades, (2) only marginal improvement in mortality that remains in the vicinity of 20% per annum and up to two times that rate (i.e., 40% annualized rate) during the first year of treatment, and (3) modest rehabilitation to the workplace for only a small fraction of patients. These sobering facts suggest that we still fall considerably short of optimal care in dialysis (2).

Acknowledgment of the shortcomings of current ESRD care practices and the metrics used to assess their efficacy is a first step. We propose that the accountability for patient outcomes must shift primarily to treating nephrologists, vascular access physicians, and dialysis providers and to patients as a second essential step. We highlight that maintenance of the status quo is untenable. Risks and uncertainties involved in advocacy of such new pathways of care will evoke controversy, but we collectively propose that the goals are worthy of the effort.

Clinical Metrics and the Political and Regulatory Environment

The US healthcare system spends more per capita on healthcare than any other country in the world, but the quality is often no better than and sometimes inferior to other developed nations (3,4). The US healthcare political and regulatory environment in 2012 demands improved quality in all areas, notably including the dialysis sector. Table 1 lists some recent initiatives intended to enhance quality of care in dialysis.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Most important legislation and programs intended to improve ESRD care

The dialysis industry along with organizations such as the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and Renal Physicians Association have been at the forefront of developing clinical metrics for patients with complex chronic illnesses, but only limited quality improvement initiatives have emerged that resulted in meaningful changes in outcomes. Our proposed actions are not contingent on the application of payment reform processes, such as the Accountable Care Organization model, and will work with or without it.

Clinical metrics in dialysis can be described to embrace three categories. Those metrics in category 1 are the most rigorous, because they relate to public reporting of aggregate outcomes and reimbursement from government funds for services rendered that meet or exceed a predetermined level of quality (e.g., Clinical Performance Measures [CPMs]). These metrics have tended to be evidence-based, might be time-limited, and may be subject to review and endorsement by oversight organizations such as the National Quality Forum (NQF). They also primarily address populations rather than individual patients. Category 2 metrics, often called Clinical Practice Guidelines, are overall somewhat less rigorous, because they are often developed internally by specialty organizations or providers themselves; examples are the NKF and the International Society of Nephrology (i.e., Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes or Large Dialysis Organizations [LDOs]). Although using best-available evidence, they also embrace expert opinion and best-practice philosophies. The Institute of Medicine phrases it as “systematically developed statements to assist practitioners and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific circumstances” (8). Clinical Practice Guidelines are intended to define minimum targets or suggestions for the care of individuals rather than for an exclusive course of management for populations of patients; however, experience has shown that these minimum targets can morph into CPMs defining average outcomes for populations of patients. Category 3 metrics are those metrics used to ensure safe practices, and they come under the aegis of the public health and safety provisions of state and federal administrative law and regulations. These metrics serve as a minimally acceptable floor, below which no practice or care system should be allowed to consistently fall.

Despite the strengths afforded by this trilevel system for quality assurance and improvement, we posit that the composite of these efforts to date has been minimally effective in the necessary and feasible improvement in patient outcomes advocated in this commentary.

The process-dominated ESRD network, state/federal surveys, and certification inspections (largely directed at category 3 metrics) have been relatively ineffective because of (1) inadequate funding, (2) infrequent surveys, and (3) importantly, a focus on the minimally acceptable floor rather than exemplary care. Although such oversight and certification processes are a necessary component of overall monitoring and quality of care improvement plans, they do not currently function in the manner to address issues posed by this essay, namely fostering a dramatic decrease in mortality, hospitalizations, and cost. In our view, it is not prudent to use them for this purpose given their other responsibilities. We suggest that patient-centered outcomes will not materially improve simply by increasing such oversight and regulation. Fundamental change will occur when physicians and providers alter how they measure their practice and processes/outcomes of care by creating aspirational standards instead of minimal performance criteria of acceptable care (the safety imperative) and incorporate the basic concepts of continuous quality improvement process.

Development and implementation of category 1 metrics are expensive and often contentious and cumbersome processes; they respond poorly to the ever-changing dynamics of ESRD care. Considering the positions of CMS and the NQF, dialysis quality metrics in category 1 still lack patient-centered clinical relevance. These metrics are largely directed to population-based measures and not at the individual patient. It is noteworthy that ESRD, despite its prevalence and high costs, is not generally recognized as having high importance by legislators, healthcare policy makers, payers, and the general public (4).

A dilemma surrounding the need for new metrics and the potential unintended consequences of advocacy of unproven metrics is apparent. Safety is paramount. A recent investigative journalist’s article arguably charged that the dialysis system in the United States has major patient safety and quality lapses, with lack of will or ability to address the concerns (6). Nevertheless, achieving the desired patient-centered outcomes within an imperative of optimum safety must not incapacitate the agents who provide the care. Changes in the clinical metrics and care that they measure must provide positive results: patients living longer with improved quality of life and preventable hospitalizations/rehospitalizations avoided. The political, regulatory, and financial environment begs for leadership and action in the dialysis world. As healthcare givers, we need to be proactive in this worthwhile endeavor.

Gaps between Current Clinical Metrics and Better Dialysis Care

Medical practice based on clinical evidence is intended to enhance both patient safety and outcomes of care. The metrics describing such practices can be used for (1) continuously improving quality, (2) comparing performance among physicians (both publicly and privately), (3) informing patients so that they can choose providers who best meet their needs, (4) advocacy of quality incentive payments linked to meaningful outcomes, and (5) monitoring the safety of the treatment setting (7,9,10). All of these metrics should ideally be valid, reliable, and reproducible, and they should undergo periodic review/revision and adjustment for patient characteristics that confound the outcome in question.

The work by Lowrie (11) has shown that achieving target values for the usual process-based metrics is necessary but insufficient to drive optimal mortality, morbidity, and quality of life outcomes—the critical objectives of any quality assurance program. Current process-based clinical metrics, both categories 1 and 2, do not make enough of a difference, accounting for only 14%–30% of the variability in patient-centered outcomes across the spectrum of providers (11,12). Recent attempts by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) through Technical Expert Panels have, in large part, failed to develop those measures that might make the kind of differences in outcomes, because the NQF rejected the recommendations, largely because of the lack of large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) ostensibly needed for a category 1 metric. An NQF endorsement requires rigorous scientific and evidence-based reviews, with the major (but not the only) determinant being the RCT (13). The paucity of evidence from high-quality RCTs in nephrology has led to a delay in the development and implementation of potentially life-saving/altering therapies, because CKD and ESRD are frequently exclusion criteria in large RCTs (unless focused directly on these issues). However, should the evidentiary standards be placed so high that they stifle innovative approaches to the problem in a field with relatively stagnant outcomes? We answer this question unequivocally no. Complimenting and perhaps preceding the RCT should be a preponderance of evidence methodology from large observational trials driving the needed changes (14). We believe the changes can be achieved quickly through the comparative effectiveness research provision of the Affordable Care Act and implemented on a time-limited basis to assess validity.

The gaps between the quality of the evidence and the need for change in treatment pathways create a dilemma for providers of care. In this setting, the advice of the Institute for Health Policy is germane (15): “Measurement of physician clinical performance in quality improvement activities need not be precise, but only sufficiently accurate to reassure physicians of the validity of the data and to engage them in redesigning the processes of care and micro-systems to improve patient outcomes.”

Basic Elements of an Action Plan

There are medical interventions that can significantly improve survival in our patients, but these interventions require a coordinated effort among physicians, staff, providers, regulatory agencies, and patients—the entire ESRD community. A collaborative action plan can be implemented and sustained.

Avoidance and Rapid Transition from the Use of Indwelling Catheters for Hemodialysis Vascular Access

The use of indwelling catheters for vascular access in incident patients has been shown in multiple observational studies to be associated with a threefold increase in the risk of mortality and a corresponding increase in hospitalizations compared with patients with arterio-venous fistulas, even after adjustments for all known comorbidities and laboratory findings. Despite the ominous predictions implicit in excessive catheter usage, approximately 82% of patients initiate hemodialysis with a catheter in the United States (1). Even in patients who have been followed by nephrologists for at least 6 months, patients initiating dialysis with a catheter remain at 75% (1,16). It is a preventable injury and an iatrogenic problem. In the new environment of care, permanent or temporary access catheters will need to decrease to a very low percentage (as achieved in other parts of the industrialized world) (16–22). We suggest that a goal of fewer than 20% of patients with catheters at 90 days after starting dialysis and fewer than 40% of patients should initiate treatment with a temporary vascular catheter. Although arbitrary, these goals seem achievable over the short term (Table 2). This example shows that the preponderance of evidence is strong enough that an RCT is not necessary.

Intensifying Hemodialysis Treatment Time at Initiation and Then Maintaining It

The only prospective study that examined the impact of dialysis treatment duration (independent of dialysis treatment dose) was the National Cooperative Dialysis Study, which showed a borderline statistical significance (P=0.06 in one publication and P=0.04 in another) for dialysis treatment duration on patient mortality (23,24). Imagine the difference that 0.01 might have made on our care today.

Confounding between statistical significance and clinical relevance has led many nephrologists to ignore dialysis treatment duration as an independent treatment factor influencing outcomes. The focus almost solely has been on the dose of dialysis (expressed as Kt/V or urea reduction ratio). Retrospective data analysis of several multinational studies supports more prolonged dialysis treatment time being associated with improved patient outcomes independent of total dialysis dosage. Dialysis treatment duration of 4 hours or more is associated with a significant improvement in patient survival (25,26) and has been advocated for by one of the dialysis providers.

The issue of whether prolonged treatment time is more helpful in avoiding excessive extracellular volume (ECV) expansion or avoiding cardiac stunning because of slower ultrafiltration rates or both needs to be addressed prospectively, but it seems reasonable that longer treatment times with less aggressive intradialytic fluid removal are likely to be beneficial (27–29). Treatment frequency and treatment interval also have effects on time-averaged ECV expansion and thereby, come into play in influencing outcomes. In essence, we advocate moving beyond the focus of providing patients with a minimum dose of dialysis as expressed by Kt/V.

We propose to initiate all incident patients with a dialysis duration of at least 4 hours (30), aiming for an ultrafiltration rate of <10 ml/kg per hour. For patients who initiate dialysis with a catheter, a minimum of 4.5 hours is recommended, with a clear message to the patient that dialysis duration may be reduced when the patient has a permanent access in use (31).

Managing Depression and Anxiety on Dialysis Initiation

Initiation of dialysis is very stressful to patients and often accompanied by heightened anxiety and exacerbation of pre-existing depression (32,33). There has been little effort to address this issue. The positive impact of a focused and intense psychosocial intervention by all caregivers for patients initiating dialysis that addresses emotional needs coupled with extensive efforts in the first 90–120 days of dialysis has been documented (34). We propose this plan as an action plan.

Reducing Hospitalization and Rehospitalization

According to the US Renal Data System, the mean number of hospital days for dialysis patients is approximately 14 days/year, and the frequency of hospitalization events is 2 episodes/year, which is relatively unchanged for more than a decade (1). The most frequent causes of hospitalization include infections (usually associated with catheters), fluid overload/congestive heart failure, metabolic problems associated with diabetes, and adverse effects of medications (the first two causes, by far, being the leading causes). Infection requires hospitalization (often prolonged) for parenteral antimicrobial therapy. Subsequent hospitalizations for complications related to the indwelling vascular catheter also occur at a much higher rate (35,36). The second cause results from lack of intensive removal of excess ECV during the first days and weeks of dialysis (37,38), often related to a normalized ECV not being determined. We do believe that hospitalization and rehospitalizations can be prevented by concentrating on those factors that demonstration projects have clearly shown to be the culprits. The aforementioned ones plus attention to medication errors, diabetic foot management, timely coordinated homecare visits, and referrals (especially after hospitalizations) have been shown to accomplish a substantial decrement in hospitalizations and readmissions.

Another risk for hospitalization is prior hospitalization. The risk for rehospitalization for dialysis patients is two times the risk of all Medicare patients discharged with a medical (not surgical) diagnosis (39,40). The resume previous orders response is a dominant one when hospitalized patients return to their outpatient dialysis units. Prompt attention to the patient status (hemoglobin, white blood cell count, estimated dry weight, etc.) as soon as they present to the dialysis unit after hospitalization often results in a significant decrease in rehospitalization rates (41,42). We propose that a checklist approach for all new and returning patients, such as the approach recommended in the work by Gawande (43), needs to be developed through the process noted at the conclusion of this commentary. CMS has recently recognized the significance of hospitalization and rehospitalization by organizing Technical Expert Panels to address this issue. We support this panel and the near-term adaptation of checklists by hospitals and dialysis providers to coordinate medication lists, target weight (often changed in the hospital), follow-up appointments, and needed home services that are prescribed during hospitalization episodes.

Improving ECF Volume Control

It is becoming increasing evident that inadequate control of the chronically expanded ECF volume contributes significantly to high morbidity and mortality of dialysis patients. Such a failure adds to the burden of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), hypertension, and congestive heart failure. The consequences of LVH may also promote sudden cardiac death attributed to ventricular fibrosis and arrhythmogenic electrical remodeling (44). Attempts to achieve euvolemia with aggressive ultrafiltration (>10 ml/kg per hour) only worsen this problem through intermittent cardiac stunning (27–29). If hypertonic saline boluses are also used during dialysis for hypotension, the net positive sodium gain can be as much as 5–7 g during the dialytic treatment session. A dialysate sodium (DNa+) prescription resulting in a higher sodium gradient is associated with increases in thirst, interdialytic weight gain, and possibly, BP. However, controversy exists regarding the effects of DNa+, with several studies questioning whether adverse events are more associated with lower rather than higher DNa+ (45–47). Observational studies have shown a direct relationship between interdialytic weight gain and risk of cardiovascular mortality (48). To maximize patient care, we believe the focus should be on achieving euvolemia during dialysis rather than specific plasma or DNa+.

A shift in focus from volume of fluids consumed and removed to a focus on time-averaged sodium chloride and ECV volume balance is needed through patient education. The goal should be to achieve as close an approximation of euvolemia as possible within the framework of conventional three times per week hemodialysis sessions. Those patients who do not achieve a reasonable degree of euvolemia should be prescribed alternative strategies, such as longer or more frequent therapy accompanied by more intense and objective monitoring of volume status (normalized ECV) using one of the recently available tools (such as hemoglobin concentration monitoring during dialysis or calf electrical bioimpedance) rather than subjective assessment of dry weight.

For many patients, an extension of the total time of dialysis and/or extension of treatment session duration is essential for improved outcomes. Therapeutic guidelines should be tightly linked to dialysis time, ultrafiltration rate, and ECV normalization in addition to Kt/V or other measures of solute removal. Dialysis adequacy is, thereby, redefined.

Care in the First 120 Days

Providing the patient with optimal care during this crucial early period of dialysis is essential to reduce the high death rate (49) and includes much of what we recommend above. (1) Minimum of 4 hours of dialysis (more if an indwelling vascular catheter is used for access). (2) Attention to LVH, with meticulous control of ECV and hypertension and not exceeding an ultrafiltration rate of 10 ml/kg per hour (50). (3) Removal of indwelling vascular catheters as soon as possible (<60 days after initiation of treatment). (4) Aggressive nutritional support (eat, eat, eat but not salt; avoid the renal diet in the hospital and in-center facility). (5) Optimal attention to comorbid events, especially diabetes and depression. (6) Focused and vigorous continuous education of patients and staff (51).

More Kidney Transplantation and Home Dialysis

This factor requires no additional explanation but should not dilute the conversation about correcting the current deficiencies of dialysis care. Peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis both need to be fostered aggressively by all providers.

Focus on Nutritional Status

Although several measures of nutritional status of dialysis patients have been proposed, the one measure that has received the most attention is serum albumin concentration. It has been estimated that a modest 0.3 g/dl improvement in serum albumin in only 50% of the patients might reduce mortality by 2000 deaths and hospitalization days by 32,000 days (52). Protein-energy wasting is one of the strongest predictors of mortality in the CKD/ESRD population. Adjunctive pharmacological therapies, such as appetite stimulants, anabolic hormones, and antioxidative or anti-inflammatory agents, might augment dietary interventions. In-center meals and/or oral supplements provided during the dialysis therapy are feasible and inexpensive interventions (53). Observational data on more than 4000 dialysis patients note the positive effects of oral nutritional supplements, with a 26% reduction in mortality and decreased hospitalization rate (54). This finding fits into the preponderance of evidence conclusion. Although the above interventions seem both reasonable and promising, controlled trials and/or additional large observational studies are needed.

Perspectives and Implementation

In this work, we opine that, despite slow incremental improvements in patient outcomes and admirable intentions by all stakeholders, the dialysis field still struggles to identify those processes and metrics that will significantly improve survival, decrease hospitalizations, and enhance the quality of life of kidney patients. Herein, we propose the basic tenets of a new pathway for care and its oversight. Standing at the crossroad is no longer acceptable. The conundrum, of course, is how to do it. Admittedly, there are no RCTs that support many of the proposed measures. Although RCTs are desirable, they take years to organize and execute (if they can be done at all). Do we need an RCT to confirm that the use of catheters is harmful and expensive? We believe that control of and reducing excessive ECV by the most efficient means possible, with avoidance of LVH, is better for the patient. Longer dialysis sessions (4 hours each or more) or more frequent treatments (daily or nocturnal) offer great promise for better patient outcomes, especially in the vulnerable period shortly after initiating treatment. An LDO recently recommended to all attending nephrologists that these treatment strategies be implemented, despite the lack of RCT evidence. However, medical practice cannot be dictated or enforced by an LDO. Changes in practice need to occur by consensus-based initiatives from a preponderance of evidence, such as we advocate in this commentary, while waiting for an RCT (which may or may not be done).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Corrective measures for vascular access

Nephrologists and dialysis providers can and will make a difference. We believe that these two mutually interconnected entities, with support from the federal government (CMS), can catalyze a move to implementing needed changes in the treatment paradigm. We cannot await only new CPM development but must move to less traditional means, asking nephrologists and dialysis providers to step up to the plate and catalyze needed change in practice patterns.

As a starting position, we suggest a Consensus Development Program of key stakeholders expertly facilitated around specific, actionable items. Maintaining the integrity of the Consensus Development Program is a high priority of the NQF (13). Such a conference, composed of chief medical officers, providers, and other stakeholders, would be charged to examine how to address the issues that we raise. This process is translational clinical research, with a cycle of innovative ideas, pilot testing, and wider implementation along with a high prospect for success.

The goal will be to determine if the preponderance of evidence is sufficient to implement changes as suggested above within the current framework of reimbursement. The financial implications of what we propose will be the topic of another manuscript.

For too long, we have been engaged in adherence to process-dominated metrics of limited value. Change needs to incorporate programs and metrics that are likely to have the greatest promise for monitoring and improving patient care and outcomes. Linking superior patient-centered outcomes to better payment for services could be a benefit to incentivize the processes that we outline.

This commentary will hopefully provoke a spirited dialogue among caregivers and providers directly responsible for patient care to begin an evolution to a new pathway of care. We anticipate that a collaborative effort among all caregivers will transform the crossroads analogy into a new dynamic exercise that improves the value of our care. The patients entrusted to our care deserve nothing less and must receive more.

Disclosures

None.

Footnotes

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

  • Copyright © 2012 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Parker T 3rd.,
    2. Hakim R,
    3. Nissenson AR,
    4. Steinman T,
    5. Glassock RJ
    : Dialysis at a crossroads: 50 years later. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 457–461, 2011pmid:21148247
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. US Renal Data System
    : USRDS 2011 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States, Bethesda, MD, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 2011
  3. ↵
    WHO: World Health Statistics 2011, 2011. Available at: http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS2011_Full.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2011
  4. ↵
    1. Straube BM
    : Commentary. The imperatives for change in the US health care payment and delivery systems are clear. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 15: 7–9, 2008pmid:18155103
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. Text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, 2010. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf. Accessed May 21, 2011
  6. ↵
    Fields R: God Help You. You’re On Dialysis, 2010. Available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/-8220-god-help-you-you-39-re-on-dialysis-8221/8308/. Accessed May 21, 2011
  7. ↵
    Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative: Annual Report, 2010. Available at: http://fistulafirst.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=dtRHh5AoBiY%3d&tabid=86. Accessed May 29, 2011
  8. ↵
    1. Field MJ,
    2. Lohr KN
    (Eds): Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program, Washington, DC, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 1990
  9. ↵
    CMS Dialysis Facility Compare. Available at: http://medicare/gov/Dialysis/. Accessed May 23, 2011
  10. ↵
    1. Vachharajani TJ,
    2. Moossavi S,
    3. Jordan JR,
    4. Vachharajani V,
    5. Freedman BI,
    6. Burkart JM
    : Re-evaluating the Fistula First initiative in octogenerians on hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 1663–1667, 2011pmid:21685023
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Lowrie EG
    : Illustrating use of a clinical data system: The NMC-FMC system. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 4[Suppl 1]: S41–S48, 2009pmid:19996004
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    Consolidated Renal Operations in a Web-Enabled Network. Available at: http://projectcrownweb.org/crown/index.php. Accessed June 21, 2011
  13. ↵
    National Quality Forum: Available at: http://www.qualityforum.org/Measuring_Performance/ABCs_of_Measurement.aspx. Accessed February 24, 2012
  14. ↵
    1. Parker TF 3rd.
    : A preponderance of evidence is sufficient. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 2561–2563, 2011pmid:21980180
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Iezzoni L
    : How Health Insurance Status Affects Persons with Disabilities. Institute of Health Policy Position Paper, Boston, MA, Institute of Health Policy, 2006
  16. ↵
    1. Robinson BM,
    2. Port FK
    : Caring for dialysis patients: International insights from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Identifying best practices and outcomes in the DOPPS. Semin Dial 23: 4–6, 2010pmid:20331809
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lee T,
    2. Barker J,
    3. Allon M
    : Tunneled catheters in hemodialysis patients: Reasons and subsequent outcomes. Am J Kidney Dis 46: 501–508, 2005pmid:16129212
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Allon M,
    2. Bailey R,
    3. Ballard R,
    4. Deierhoi MH,
    5. Hamrick K,
    6. Oser R,
    7. Rhynes VK,
    8. Robbin ML,
    9. Saddekni S,
    10. Zeigler ST
    : A multidisciplinary approach to hemodialysis access: Prospective evaluation. Kidney Int 53: 473–479, 1998pmid:9461109
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lacson E Jr.,
    2. Wang W,
    3. Lazarus JM,
    4. Hakim RM
    : Change in vascular access and mortality in maintenance hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 54: 912–921, 2009pmid:19748717
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Danese MD,
    2. Liu Z,
    3. Griffiths RI,
    4. Dylan M,
    5. Yu HT,
    6. Dubois R,
    7. Nissenson AR
    : Catheter use is high even among hemodialysis patients with a fistula or graft. Kidney Int 70: 1482–1485, 2006pmid:16941025
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hakim R,
    2. Himmelfarb J
    : Hemodialysis access failure: A call to action. Kidney Int 76: 1040–1048, 2009pmid:9767519
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Ethier J,
    2. Mendelssohn DC,
    3. Elder SJ,
    4. Hasegawa T,
    5. Akizawa T,
    6. Akiba T,
    7. Canaud BJ,
    8. Pisoni RL
    : Vascular access use and outcomes: An international perspective from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 23: 3219–3226, 2008pmid:18511606
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Lowrie EG,
    2. Laird NM,
    3. Parker TF,
    4. Sargent JA
    : Effect of hemodialysis prescription on patient morbidity: Report from the National Cooperative Dialysis Study. N Engl J Med 305: 1176–1181, 1981pmid:7027040
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    The National Cooperative Dialysis Study. Kidney Int 13: S1–S122, 1983
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Saran R,
    2. Bragg-Gresham JL,
    3. Levin NW,
    4. Twardowski ZJ,
    5. Wizemann V,
    6. Saito A,
    7. Kimata N,
    8. Gillespie BW,
    9. Combe C,
    10. Bommer J,
    11. Akiba T,
    12. Mapes DL,
    13. Young EW,
    14. Port FK
    : Longer treatment time and slower ultrafiltration in hemodialysis: Associations with reduced mortality in the DOPPS. Kidney Int 69: 1222–1228, 2006pmid:16609686
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Marshall MR,
    2. Byrne BG,
    3. Kerr PG,
    4. McDonald SP
    : Associations of hemodialysis dose and session length with mortality risk in Australian and New Zealand patients. Kidney Int 69: 1229–1236, 2006pmid:16609687
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Brunelli SM,
    2. Chertow GM,
    3. Ankers ED,
    4. Lowrie EG,
    5. Thadhani R
    : Shorter dialysis times are associated with higher mortality among incident hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 77: 630–636, 2010pmid:20090666
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Movilli E,
    2. Gaggia P,
    3. Zubani R,
    4. Camerini C,
    5. Vizzardi V,
    6. Parrinello G,
    7. Savoldi S,
    8. Fischer MS,
    9. Londrino F,
    10. Cancarini G
    : Association between high ultrafiltration rates and mortality in uraemic patients on regular haemodialysis. A 5-year prospective observational multicentre study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 22: 3547–3552, 2007pmid:17890254
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Flythe JE,
    2. Kimmel SE,
    3. Brunelli SM
    : Rapid fluid removal during dialysis is associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Kidney Int 79: 250–257, 2011pmid:20927040
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Lacson E Jr.,
    2. Brunelli SM
    : Hemodialysis treatment time: A fresh perspective. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 2522–2530, 2011pmid:21885788
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Maduell F,
    2. Vera M,
    3. Arias M,
    4. Fontseré N,
    5. Blasco M,
    6. Serra N,
    7. Bergadá E,
    8. Cases A,
    9. Campistol JM
    : How much should dialysis time be increased when catheters are used?. Nefrologia 28: 633–636, 2008pmid:19016637
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Duteau J
    : Understanding the lived experience of loss and grieving in persons with end stage renal disease: A humanbecoming approach. CANNT J 20: 18–22, 2010pmid:20642161
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Chan R,
    2. Brooks R,
    3. Erlich J,
    4. Chow J,
    5. Suranyi M
    : The effects of kidney-disease-related loss on long-term dialysis patients’ depression and quality of life: Positive affect as a mediator. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 4: 160–167, 2009pmid:18987298
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Kelly M,
    2. Tibbles R
    : Counselling should be offered to people with end-stage renal failure. EDTNA ERCA J 30: 31–33, 2004pmid:15163032
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Allon M
    : Dialysis catheter-related bacteremia: Treatment and prophylaxis. Am J Kidney Dis 44: 779–791, 2004pmid:15492943
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Oliver MJ,
    2. Rothwell DM,
    3. Fung K,
    4. Hux JE,
    5. Lok CE
    : Late creation of vascular access for hemodialysis and increased risk of sepsis. J Am Soc Nephrol 15: 1936–1942, 2004pmid:15213284
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Chan KE,
    2. Maddux FW,
    3. Tolkoff-Rubin N,
    4. Karumanchi SA,
    5. Thadhani R,
    6. Hakim RM
    : Early outcomes among those initiating chronic dialysis in the United States. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 2642–2649, 2011pmid:21959599
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Collins AJ,
    2. Foley RN,
    3. Gilbertson DT,
    4. Chen SC
    : The state of chronic kidney disease, ESRD, and morbidity and mortality in the first year of dialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 4[Suppl 1]: S5–S11, 2009pmid:19996006
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Jencks SF,
    2. Williams MV,
    3. Coleman EA
    : Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med 360: 1418–1428, 2009pmid:19339721
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Epstein AM
    : Revisiting readmissions—changing the incentives for shared accountability. N Engl J Med 360: 1457–1459, 2009pmid:19339727
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Chan KE,
    2. Lazarus JM,
    3. Wingard RL,
    4. Hakim RM
    : Association between repeat hospitalization and early intervention in dialysis patients following hospital discharge. Kidney Int 76: 331–341, 2009pmid:19516243
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Turenne MN,
    2. Hirth RA,
    3. Messana JM,
    4. Turner JS,
    5. Sleeman KK,
    6. Wheeler JR
    : When payment systems collide: The effect of hospitalization on anemia in renal dialysis patients. Med Care 48: 296–305, 2010pmid:20195175
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Gwande A
    : The Checklist Manifesto—How to Get Things Right, Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt & Co., LLC, New York, 2010
  38. ↵
    1. Ritz E,
    2. Bommer J
    : Cardiovascular problems on hemodialysis: Current deficits and potential improvement. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 4[Suppl 1]: S71–S78, 2009pmid:19996009
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Munoz Mendoza J,
    2. Sun S,
    3. Chertow GM,
    4. Moran J,
    5. Doss S,
    6. Schiller B
    : Dialysate sodium and sodium gradient in maintenance hemodialysis: A neglected sodium restriction approach? Nephrol Dial Transplant 26: 1281–1287, 2011pmid:21303968
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. McCausland FR,
    2. Brunelli SM,
    3. Waikar SS
    : Dialysate sodium, serum sodium and mortality in maintenance hemodialysis [published online ahead of print September 2, 2011]. Nephrol Dial Transplant doi:10.1093/ndt/gfr497
  40. ↵
    1. Hecking M,
    2. Karaboyas A,
    3. Saran R,
    4. Sen A,
    5. Inaba M,
    6. Rayner H,
    7. Hörl WH,
    8. Pisoni RL,
    9. Robinson BM,
    10. Sunder-Plassmann G,
    11. Port FK
    : Dialysate sodium concentration and the association with interdialytic weight gain, hospitalization, and mortality. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7: 92–100, 2012pmid:22052942
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Kalantar-Zadeh K,
    2. Regidor DL,
    3. Kovesdy CP,
    4. Van Wyck D,
    5. Bunnapradist S,
    6. Horwich TB,
    7. Fonarow GC
    : Fluid retention is associated with cardiovascular mortality in patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis. Circulation 119: 671–679, 2009pmid:19171851
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Wingard RL,
    2. Pupim LB,
    3. Krishnan M,
    4. Shintani A,
    5. Ikizler TA,
    6. Hakim RM
    : Early intervention improves mortality and hospitalization rates in incident hemodialysis patients: RightStart program. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2: 1170–1175, 2007pmid:17942761
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Arneson TJ,
    2. Liu J,
    3. Qiu Y,
    4. Gilbertson DT,
    5. Foley RN,
    6. Collins AJ
    : Hospital treatment for fluid overload in the Medicare hemodialysis population. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 1054–1063, 2010pmid:20430944
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Cavanaugh KL,
    2. Wingard RL,
    3. Hakim RM,
    4. Eden S,
    5. Shintani A,
    6. Wallston KA,
    7. Huizinga MM,
    8. Elasy TA,
    9. Rothman RL,
    10. Ikizler TA
    : Low health literacy associates with increased mortality in ESRD. J Am Soc Nephrol 21: 1979–1985, 2010pmid:20671215
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. Lacson E Jr.,
    2. Ikizler TA,
    3. Lazarus JM,
    4. Teng M,
    5. Hakim RM
    : Potential impact of nutritional intervention on end-stage renal disease hospitalization, death, and treatment costs. J Ren Nutr 17: 363–371, 2007pmid:17971308
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Kalantar-Zadeh K,
    2. Cano NJ,
    3. Budde K,
    4. Chazot C,
    5. Kovesdy CP,
    6. Mak RH,
    7. Mehrotra R,
    8. Raj DS,
    9. Sehgal AR,
    10. Stenvinkel P,
    11. Ikizler TA
    : Diets and enteral supplements for improving outcomes in chronic kidney disease. Nat Rev Nephrol 7: 369–384, 2011pmid:21629229
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Lacson E,
    2. Wang W,
    3. Zebrowski BL,
    4. Lazarus JM,
    5. Hakim RM
    : Effect of oral nutritional supplements on mortality in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 22: 246A, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 7 (6)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 7, Issue 6
June 07, 2012
  • 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.
Dialysis at a Crossroads—Part II: A Call for Action
(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
Dialysis at a Crossroads—Part II: A Call for Action
Thomas F. Parker, Barry M. Straube, Allen Nissenson, Raymond M. Hakim, Theodore I. Steinman, Richard J. Glassock
CJASN Jun 2012, 7 (6) 1026-1032; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.11381111

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Dialysis at a Crossroads—Part II: A Call for Action
Thomas F. Parker, Barry M. Straube, Allen Nissenson, Raymond M. Hakim, Theodore I. Steinman, Richard J. Glassock
CJASN Jun 2012, 7 (6) 1026-1032; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.11381111
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Summary
    • Introduction, Scope, and Purpose
    • Clinical Metrics and the Political and Regulatory Environment
    • Gaps between Current Clinical Metrics and Better Dialysis Care
    • Basic Elements of an Action Plan
    • Perspectives and Implementation
    • Disclosures
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Commentary on Risks of Living Kidney Donation
  • Commentary on “Demystifying the Benefits and Harms of Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation in CKD”
  • Commentary on Complications of Immunosuppressive Treatments for Glomerulonephritis
Show more Commentary

Cited By...

  • Systems Thinking and Leadership: How Nephrologists Can Transform Dialysis Safety to Prevent Infections
  • The Medical Director and Quality Requirements in the Dialysis Facility
  • The Occurrence of Increased Intraperitoneal Volume Events in Automated Peritoneal Dialysis in the US: Role of Programming, Patient/User Actions and Ultrafiltration
  • Dialysis Therapies: A National Dialogue
  • Improving Outcomes for ESRD Patients: Shifting the Quality Paradigm
  • Comparison of Hospitalization Rates among For-Profit and Nonprofit Dialysis Facilities
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • 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

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

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

Powered by HighWire