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
  • 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
  • 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
Special Feature
You have accessRestricted Access

A Communication Framework for Dialysis Decision-Making for Frail Elderly Patients

Jane O. Schell and Robert A. Cohen
CJASN November 2014, 9 (11) 2014-2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.02190314
Jane O. Schell
*Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics and
†Renal-Electrolyte Division, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert A. Cohen
‡Department of Medicine, Nephrology Division, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 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

Abstract

Frail elderly patients with advanced kidney disease experience many of the burdens associated with dialysis. Although these patients constitute the fastest-growing population starting dialysis, they often suffer loss of functional status, impaired quality of life, and increased mortality after dialysis initiation. Nephrology clinicians face the challenges of helping patients decide if the potential benefits of dialysis outweigh the risks and preparing such patients for future setbacks. A communication framework for dialysis decision-making that aligns treatment choices with patient goals and values is presented. The role of uncertainty is highlighted, and the concept of a goal-directed care plan is introduced. This plan incorporates a time-limited trial that promotes frequent opportunities for reassessment. Using the communication skills presented, the clinician can prepare and guide patients for the dialysis trajectory as it unfolds.

  • CKD
  • children
  • pediatric nephrology

Introduction

Gerald is a 78-year-old man with slowly-progressive stage 4 CKD caused by hypertension and diabetes mellitus. Over the past year, he sustained an acute myocardial infarction and subsequently developed systolic congestive heart failure. After a long hospitalization and rehabilitation stay, Gerald moved into assisted living. He has dyspnea on exertion. At his last visit, he and his nephrologist discussed the news that his kidney disease has worsened to the point that dialysis options should be considered. The goal of this visit is to discuss treatment options and whether dialysis is what Gerald would want when the need arises. In the past, Gerald has stated that he would want dialysis if it could enable him to spend more time with his grandchildren.

Gerald's case highlights the challenge that nephrology clinicians encounter in the care of frail elderly patients with kidney disease: how to discuss treatment options with an individual who may not do well on dialysis. Elderly patients, defined as those ≥75 years, constitute one of the fastest-growing age groups initiating dialysis (1). Frailty is a clinical phenotype that encompasses medical complexity and functional limitations. Its presence has been associated with poor outcomes in the elderly patients with kidney disease (2,3). Frail elderly patients often experience burdens associated with dialysis, such as decrements in quality of life, loss of functional status, and increased risk for hospitalizations and institutionalized care (4–6). In the setting of marked frailty and advanced comorbidities, dialysis may not confer survival benefit and may be associated with more harm (7,8). Clinicians are tasked with helping patients decide if the potential benefits of dialysis outweigh these risks.

Discussions about dialysis decision-making can be stressful. These discussions are often perceived as time-consuming and may arouse strong emotions. Also, uncertainty exists about how well a patient will tolerate and respond to dialysis. This uncertainty may serve as a barrier to discussions that prepare patients for the potential burdens and functional losses that accompany dialysis (9). As a consequence, patients miss the opportunity for timely discussions of prognosis and advance care planning for when things do not go well.

Although dialysis withdrawal is a leading cause of death in patients on dialysis, many patients have not engaged in discussions about end-of-life or completed advance care directives (10–12). As a result, these vital conversations occur too late and are frequently left to loved ones, who may be unsure what the patient would want (13). Such patients are more likely to die in the hospital and less likely to receive timely hospice services compared with patients with other life-limiting illnesses (14,15). Early discussions of prognosis and end-of-life can lead to less intensive care at the end of life and care consistent with patient preferences (16,17).

We address two tasks for the clinician caring for frail elderly patients facing dialysis decisions: how to help patients decide if the potential benefits of dialysis outweigh the risks, and how to prepare patients who elect dialysis for potential future setbacks. We outline a patient-centered communication framework called SPIRES (setup, perceptions and perspectives, invitation, recommendation, empathize, summarize and strategize), adapted from a previously described approach for delivering bad news (SPIKES–setup, perceptions, invitation, knowledge, empathize, summarize and strategize) (18), to guide clinicians in these discussions of dialysis decision making. We further define the concept of a goal-directed care plan that incorporates patient values into defined milestones (i.e., patient goals) and pause points (i.e., undesirable outcomes and burdens).

Consideration of Treatment Paths for Patients Who May Do Poorly

For frail elderly patients, one must consider not only survival on dialysis but also, quality of life on dialysis. Although dialysis may extend life for most patients, significant burdens may accompany this additional time, thus diminishing quality of life. An understanding of both the burdens and benefits of dialysis takes into account not just if the patient will survive on dialysis but how the patient will live while undergoing dialysis (Table 1).

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

Potential benefits and burdens of dialysis for frail elderly patients

Data suggest that patients often have preferences for how they live and the kinds of treatments that they are willing to undergo for a given goal (19–21). By learning the specific preferences and goals of a given patient, the clinician has a better idea of which treatment path may be most appropriate for that individual. These treatment paths for dialysis decision making are summarized below.

Dialysis Path with a Focus on Extending Life

Patients who elect the dialysis path typically hope for improved survival in anticipation of attaining specific personal goals. The potential benefit of extended survival, however, is often associated with increased exposure to the health care system. This added exposure involves the time to undergo dialysis and also, the medical procedures associated with dialysis access (22). These patients are also at risk for common complications of dialysis, such as hospitalizations for infections and acute illness, rehabilitation stays for functional declines, and clinical setbacks from coexisting illnesses. Most elderly patients (approximately 95%) choose hemodialysis as the dialysis modality (1). For patients who elect the dialysis path, the clinician can propose a time-limited trial to reassess whether patient goals have been met (see below).

Supportive Care (Nondialysis) Path with a Focus on Quality of Life

Patients who choose supportive care focus on quality of life, despite the possibility for a shorter lifespan. Treatment involves management of the disease and its symptoms but excludes dialysis. Care is focused on symptom management and the medical issues associated with advanced CKD. Patients who choose this path typically wish to avoid intensive medical treatments and hospitalizations as health declines (23). Patients who choose this path would benefit from early referral to palliative care and hospice services.

SPIRES: Patient-Centered Communication Framework for Dialysis Decision-Making

A patient-centered framework for dialysis decision-making focuses on eliciting the goals and values of the patient (Table 2). SPIRES is a step-wise communication framework to assist the clinician in treatment decision-making for patients who may not do well with dialysis. By learning about the patient as a person, the clinician gains a sense of whether a patient’s goals are consistent with a treatment path focused on quality or quantity. If dialysis is chosen, the clinician can then incorporate these goals into a care plan. These goals will then serve as meaningful milestones to be assessed as the course unfolds.

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

SPIRES: a patient-centered framework for dialysis decision making

Setup: Preparing for the Conversation

Just as preparation is fundamental to the success of the procedures that we perform, preparing for a dialysis discussion is critical. To begin the process, the patient’s record should be reviewed for pertinent clinical and laboratory trends. This patient-specific information can then be considered in the context of evidence-based data regarding outcomes in comparable patients. Prognostic models, such as the Cohen 6-month mortality predictor, can identify patients who have a high risk of death on dialysis (24). This model combines four clinical variables with the surprise question (would I be surprised if this patient died in 6 months?) (25). In general, patients who are less likely to benefit from dialysis initiation include patients with marked frailty, patients in nursing homes, and elderly patients with certain comorbidities. For patients with significant comorbid illnesses (such as heart failure or cancer), seeking the input of the other physicians managing these conditions is warranted. By acquiring more information about the treatment plan and prognosis of these coexisting illnesses, the clinician has a better understanding of how likely dialysis will affect the patient’s overall clinical course.

The clinician initially extends an invitation to have the conversation: “Last visit, we discussed that your kidney function has worsened to the point that we need to talk about the next steps. Would it be alright if we did that today?” This question ensures that the patient does not feel forced to have the conversation and that both the patient and clinician are in agreement about the agenda. For such serious discussions, patients often prefer to have a loved one present for support or consultation. Therefore, the clinician should ask if the patient would like someone to be present for the discussion.

Perceptions and Perspectives: Understanding the Patient as a Person

Data suggest that treatment preferences in older seriously-ill patients depend on the expected outcomes with a given treatment. Patients will frequently elect to undergo a given treatment with the hope of achieving an anticipated outcome, despite the risk of certain burdens (19). For these patients, the accompanying risk is outweighed by the potential attainment of a certain outcome. These outcomes can vary depending on the individual and are influenced by a patient’s specific values. These values can be understood by asking open-ended questions that explore what the patient hopes to gain from the treatment. By assessing a patient’s concerns and worries, the clinician gains insight into how much burden the patient is willing to tolerate to achieve a designated goal or, conversely, what conditions the patient wishes to avoid in pursuit of a goal.

In some instances, it is helpful to frame the conversation by describing the two different treatment paths, dialysis or supportive care, very explicitly: “Some people want to live as long as possible and choose dialysis, which may entail frequent hospitalizations and less independence. Other people focus on the quality of their lives and decline dialysis knowing that this will likely limit their survival. Do you have a sense of how you feel about this matter?”

Understanding what a patient hopes to achieve with dialysis can provide meaningful goals that can be incorporated into the care plan. A patient’s response to questions that explore hopes allows the clinician insight into the goals that a patient wishes to achieve. Such hopes may include the ability to do or experience certain things and the activities that bring joy and fulfillment, as well as the ability and willingness to tolerate burdens in exchange for longevity. From this exploration, the clinician learns how a patient views his or her quality of life.

It is equally essential to elicit the patient’s worries and concerns. These include the conditions or health states that a person perceives as unacceptable or intolerable. For example, a frail elderly patient initiating dialysis has a high likelihood at some later time of requiring skilled nursing in a facility. Exploring whether living in such a state would be considered tolerable and consistent with a patient’s desired quality of life assists with making future care decisions.

The answers to questions regarding hopes and worries provide the clinician with a more expansive picture of the patient as a person (Table 2). After exploring these questions with Gerald, for example, the clinician learns that his primary goal is to spend time with his family and avoid future hospitalizations. He worries most about being a burden to his family, especially if he were in a more dependent state in which others would have to take care of him. These data assist the clinician as he or she formulates a treatment recommendation and care plan for Gerald. Gerald perceives dialysis to be a beneficial treatment path provided that he remains healthy enough to enjoy meaningful time with his family. If Gerald experiences marked decline in his functional status and becomes dependent, dialysis would no longer be considered beneficial by Gerald and ought to be reconsidered.

Sharing relevant prognostic information with the patient is an integral part of the decision-making conversation. Although tools exist to aid discussions about prognosis on dialysis, uncertainty about how a given patient’s course may unfold often causes the clinician to avoid such a discussion. Patients, however, want information about the future even when uncertainty exists and prefer that the physician offer it voluntarily (10,26). The clinician should ask the patient what type of information would be helpful to them (are you the type of person who wants specific details and statistics or would you prefer to know how others similar to you have fared?) (27,28). Importantly, prognostic conversations frequently evoke strong emotions (see below).

Invitation and Recommendation

The clinician is now ready to offer a recommendation for the treatment path that optimally accounts for both the patient’s specific goals and the clinical data. Before making this recommendation, it is helpful to extend an invitation to offer a recommendation: “Based on our conversation and my medical opinion, would you like my recommendation?” If the patient agrees, the clinician can proceed: “From what you have shared with me about your current quality of life and goals, I would recommend that we pursue preparation for dialysis. Here is why…” Here, the clinician can use the patient’s own goals and values to justify the recommendation.

Empathize: Importance of Emotion

Serious conversations, such as those pertaining to decisions about dialysis, “big picture” goals, and prognosis, evoke emotional responses in patients. It is essential for the clinician to anticipate and recognize these emotions as they arise. Such emotions may interfere with the patient’s ability to integrate necessary information (29). Paying attention to these emotions, whether they are expressed verbally or nonverbally, also enables the clinician to understand how the patient is dealing with the issues under discussion (30,31). A tool to help with responding to emotion is the acronym NURSE: naming the emotion, understanding the emotion, respecting the patient, supporting the patient, and exploring the emotion (32,33). Any one of these approaches allows the patient to feel they are heard, and cope with the information being given (Table 2).

Strategize: Time-Limited Trial of Dialysis

A goal-directed care plan views the initiation of dialysis as a time-limited trial, with continuation of the therapy dependent on attainment of meaningful goals and avoidance of the burdens of therapy (Table 3) (34). Time-limited trials are recommended when uncertainty exists as to how a patient may do on dialysis (35). However, less guidance exists as to how to conduct a time-limited trial and how long. The details and duration of a trial of dialysis will likely vary for a given patient. For a patient with AKI, a sufficient trial may be days to weeks depending on the clinical scenario. However, for a patient with progressive CKD, a sufficient trial to assess for success or failure may require weeks to months of dialysis. Each trial should include patient-specific goals and time courses. It begins with a discussion of what the treatment will be and why a time-limited trial of dialysis is being proposed. The clinician can share his or her own concerns about the kinds of burdens that may accompany dialysis (Table 1), further clarifying the reason for a goal-directed care plan that prepares for potential declines.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Six steps of a goal-directed care plan with time-limited trial of dialysis

If dialysis is elected and a time-limited trial is suggested, the clinician reviews the articulated milestones that represent evidence of dialysis as a successful treatment and pause points that suggest that dialysis may be causing more unacceptable burden than benefit. The hopes and concerns elicited from the patient inform these particular milestones and pause points. Outlining these specific markers allows the clinician to convey to the patient that we hope for the best and prepare for the worst (36). In other words, the clinician acknowledges uncertainty and prepares the patient in the event that things do not go well.

Using Milestones and Pause Points to Define a Time-Limited Trial

Hope for the Best: Identifying Patient-Specific Milestones

The progress of a treatment, such as dialysis, is typically monitored with objective findings, such as laboratory values, nutritional status, and overall clinical condition. When discussing a treatment plan that encompasses patient-directed goals, progress should similarly be defined in terms of objective findings that are meaningful for the patient. They are specific goals that address what a patient hopes dialysis will accomplish. These milestones represent what success with dialysis would look like.

Clinician: “Earlier, you told me what you hoped to gain with dialysis and the things that you wished to avoid. Your main goal was to spend time with your family and be active enough to live outside of a skilled nursing facility. Do I have that right? Is there anything we should add?”Gerald: “I think you have it right. Since my wife died, seeing my grandkids is my main source of happiness.”Clinician: “From what you have told me, you have a couple of goals that you hope to achieve, one of which is to get a little stronger and remain independent enough to live at home. The ability to spend time with your family is what gives you great joy. Do I have that right?”Gerald: “Yeah, that’s right.”

Prepare for the Worst: Identifying Patient-Specific Pause Points

Articulating the kinds of setbacks or health conditions for which a patient would not want to continue dialysis is as fundamental as outlining the goals that a patient hopes to achieve. These pause points are critical opportunities to reassess the treatment plan and determine if dialysis continues to provide benefit. For some patients, these pause points are when they become debilitated to the point that they require nursing home placement. For other patients, living in a nursing facility may be tolerable as long as they can spend meaningful time with the ones who they love. By naming these specific situations or health conditions in advance, the clinician and patient identify circumstances for which dialysis withdrawal and a shift toward comfort is reasonable and consistent with the patient's wishes. Pause points are also opportunities to assess for symptoms or burdens that may benefit from referral to services, such as palliative care for ongoing symptom management.

Clinician: “We spoke earlier about the things that you hoped that dialysis would achieve. Would it be ok to explore how things might change if you couldn’t achieve these goals?”Gerald: “I guess that would be a good idea.”Clinician: “You mentioned that if you had to go back and forth from the nursing home to the hospital, then all this would not be worth it. Do I have that right?”Gerald: “There wouldn’t be any point to living if that happened. I think at that point I’d be a burden.”Clinician: “So if we get there, we should consider stopping dialysis.”Gerald: “I guess so…”Clinician: “I imagine that it is hard to talk about this. I hope we do not get there for a long time.”Gerald: “Me too. It is better to plan though, because it makes it easier on my family.”Clinician: “Have you talked to them about all of this?”Gerald: “I’ve mentioned it to them the last time that I was in the hospital.”

By outlining relevant milestones and pause points explicitly, the clinician and patient can better visualize the time when dialysis withdrawal may be an appropriate treatment consideration. Because patients may become too ill at some later time to make their own decisions, we recommend that the family members or a health care proxy be informed about this care plan and be present for its formulation and at future pause points.

Documenting and Revisiting the Care Plan

The verbal communication involved in determining the components of a goal-directed care plan using a time-limited trial that includes milestones and pause points should be documented in the medical record so that all members of the care team have access to it. The patient’s appointed decision-maker should also be clearly noted in the care plan documentation in the event that surrogate decision-making is needed.

The care plan is meant to be fluid and not fixed, because patient-specific milestones and pause points may change. As the clinical course unfolds—often with unanticipated alterations in functional, cognitive, or clinical status—a given patient’s goals and preferences may also change (37). The content of the goal-directed care plan should also reflect this fluidity and be open to modification (Figure 1). Figure 1 outlines a goal-directed care plan that uses milestones and pause points to guide a time-limited dialysis trail. These care plans also encourage opportunities for the clinician to introduce palliative care and hospice services as a support for ongoing symptom management, additional advance care planning, and end-of-life care. Written documentation is particularly beneficial to guide surrogate decision-making for those patients who no longer have the capacity to participate in decisions related to treatments. Documentation includes outlining of the contents of the goal-directed care plan and completion of care preferences, such as written orders for life-sustaining therapies (38).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Using milestones and pause points. Goal-directed plan of care with trial of dialysis.

Conclusion

Whether dialysis provides meaningful benefit or undue burden in frail elderly patients with progressive CKD is often unclear. Identifying those patients who may benefit from dialysis initiation is challenging and frequently fraught with uncertainty. We present a patient-centered, goal-directed framework for discussions of dialysis decision-making in seriously ill patients. We propose using open-ended questions to gain an understanding of the patient’s goals and concerns. From these discussions, the clinician is able to provide an informed, patient-specific recommendation. We define a time-limited trial of dialysis as a goal-directed treatment plan that outlines the milestones that the patient hopes to achieve with dialysis and the pause points at which time dialysis as a treatment should be reconsidered. Identifying pause points in the care plan promotes a timely shift toward comfort measures, which enables a patient to gain the fullest possible advantage from such end-of-life services as palliative care and hospice.

Disclosures

None.

Acknowledgment

We thank Dr. Robert Arnold for his expertise in communication skills education and helpful suggestions for this manuscript.

Footnotes

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

  • Copyright © 2014 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. USRDS
    : 2013 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States, Bethesda, MD, National Institutes of Health, 2013
  2. ↵
    1. Johansen KL,
    2. Delgado C,
    3. Bao Y,
    4. Kurella Tamura M
    : Frailty and dialysis initiation. Semin Dial 26: 690–696, 2013pmid:24004376
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Roshanravan B,
    2. Khatri M,
    3. Robinson-Cohen C,
    4. Levin G,
    5. Patel KV,
    6. de Boer IH,
    7. Seliger S,
    8. Ruzinski J,
    9. Himmelfarb J,
    10. Kestenbaum B
    : A prospective study of frailty in nephrology-referred patients with CKD. Am J Kidney Dis 60: 912–921, 2012pmid:22770927
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Kurella Tamura M,
    2. Covinsky KE,
    3. Chertow GM,
    4. Yaffe K,
    5. Landefeld CS,
    6. McCulloch CE
    : Functional status of elderly adults before and after initiation of dialysis. N Engl J Med 361: 1539–1547, 2009pmid:19828531
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Singh P,
    2. Germain MJ,
    3. Cohen L,
    4. Unruh M
    : The elderly patient on dialysis: Geriatric considerations. Nephrol Dial Transplant 29: 990–996, 2014pmid:23787545
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Jassal SV,
    2. Chiu E,
    3. Hladunewich M
    : Loss of independence in patients starting dialysis at 80 years of age or older. N Engl J Med 361: 1612–1613, 2009pmid:19828543
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Chandna SM,
    2. Da Silva-Gane M,
    3. Marshall C,
    4. Warwicker P,
    5. Greenwood RN,
    6. Farrington K
    : Survival of elderly patients with stage 5 CKD: Comparison of conservative management and renal replacement therapy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 26: 1608–1614, 2011pmid:21098012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Murtagh FE,
    2. Marsh JE,
    3. Donohoe P,
    4. Ekbal NJ,
    5. Sheerin NS,
    6. Harris FE
    : Dialysis or not? A comparative survival study of patients over 75 years with chronic kidney disease stage 5. Nephrol Dial Transplant 22: 1955–1962, 2007pmid:17412702
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Schell JO,
    2. Patel UD,
    3. Steinhauser KE,
    4. Ammarell N,
    5. Tulsky JA
    : Discussions of the kidney disease trajectory by elderly patients and nephrologists: A qualitative study. Am J Kidney Dis 59: 495–503, 2012pmid:22221483
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Davison SN
    : End-of-life care preferences and needs: Perceptions of patients with chronic kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 195–204, 2010pmid:20089488
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Singer PA,
    2. Thiel EC,
    3. Naylor CD,
    4. Richardson RM,
    5. Llewellyn-Thomas H,
    6. Goldstein M,
    7. Saiphoo C,
    8. Uldall PR,
    9. Kim D,
    10. Mendelssohn DC
    : Life-sustaining treatment preferences of hemodialysis patients: Implications for advance directives. J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 1410–1417, 1995pmid:8589316
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Wachterman MW,
    2. Marcantonio ER,
    3. Davis RB,
    4. Cohen RA,
    5. Waikar SS,
    6. Phillips RS,
    7. McCarthy EP
    : Relationship between the prognostic expectations of seriously ill patients undergoing hemodialysis and their nephrologists. JAMA Intern Med 173: 1206–1214, 2013pmid:23712681
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Wendler D,
    2. Rid A
    : Systematic review: The effect on surrogates of making treatment decisions for others. Ann Intern Med 154: 336–346, 2011pmid:21357911
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Wong SP,
    2. Kreuter W,
    3. O’Hare AM
    : Treatment intensity at the end of life in older adults receiving long-term dialysis. Arch Intern Med 172: 661–663, 2012pmid:22529233
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Wong SP,
    2. Kreuter W,
    3. O’Hare AM
    : Healthcare intensity at initiation of chronic dialysis among older adults. J Am Soc Nephrol 25: 143–149, 2014pmid:24262795
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Mack JW,
    2. Weeks JC,
    3. Wright AA,
    4. Block SD,
    5. Prigerson HG
    : End-of-life discussions, goal attainment, and distress at the end of life: Predictors and outcomes of receipt of care consistent with preferences. J Clin Oncol 28: 1203–1208, 2010pmid:20124172
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Wright AA,
    2. Zhang B,
    3. Ray A,
    4. Mack JW,
    5. Trice E,
    6. Balboni T,
    7. Mitchell SL,
    8. Jackson VA,
    9. Block SD,
    10. Maciejewski PK,
    11. Prigerson HG
    : Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment. JAMA 300: 1665–1673, 2008pmid:18840840
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Baile WF,
    2. Buckman R,
    3. Lenzi R,
    4. Glober G,
    5. Beale EA,
    6. Kudelka AP
    : SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: Application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist 5: 302–311, 2000pmid:10964998
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Fried TR,
    2. Bradley EH,
    3. Towle VR,
    4. Allore H
    : Understanding the treatment preferences of seriously ill patients. N Engl J Med 346: 1061–1066, 2002pmid:11932474
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Morton RL,
    2. Snelling P,
    3. Webster AC,
    4. Rose J,
    5. Masterson R,
    6. Johnson DW,
    7. Howard K
    : Dialysis modality preference of patients with CKD and family caregivers: A discrete-choice study. Am J Kidney Dis 60: 102–111, 2012pmid:22417786
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Winterbottom A,
    2. Bekker HL,
    3. Conner M,
    4. Mooney A
    : Choosing dialysis modality: Decision making in a chronic illness context [published online ahead of print July 2, 2014]. Health Expect doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00798.xpmid:22748072
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Carson RC,
    2. Juszczak M,
    3. Davenport A,
    4. Burns A
    : Is maximum conservative management an equivalent treatment option to dialysis for elderly patients with significant comorbid disease? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 4: 1611–1619, 2009pmid:19808244
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Morton RL,
    2. Snelling P,
    3. Webster AC,
    4. Rose J,
    5. Masterson R,
    6. Johnson DW,
    7. Howard K
    : Factors influencing patient choice of dialysis versus conservative care to treat end-stage kidney disease. CMAJ 184: E277–E283, 2012pmid:22311947
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Cohen LM,
    2. Ruthazer R,
    3. Moss AH,
    4. Germain MJ
    : Predicting six-month mortality for patients who are on maintenance hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 72–79, 2010pmid:19965531
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Moss AH,
    2. Ganjoo J,
    3. Sharma S,
    4. Gansor J,
    5. Senft S,
    6. Weaner B,
    7. Dalton C,
    8. MacKay K,
    9. Pellegrino B,
    10. Anantharaman P,
    11. Schmidt R
    : Utility of the “surprise” question to identify dialysis patients with high mortality. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 3: 1379–1384, 2008pmid:18596118
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Fine A,
    2. Fontaine B,
    3. Kraushar MM,
    4. Rich BR
    : Nephrologists should voluntarily divulge survival data to potential dialysis patients: A questionnaire study. Perit Dial Int 25: 269–273, 2005pmid:15981775
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Back AL,
    2. Arnold RM
    : Discussing prognosis: “How much do you want to know?” talking to patients who are prepared for explicit information. J Clin Oncol 24: 4209–4213, 2006pmid:16943539
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Schell JO,
    2. Arnold RM
    : NephroTalk: Communication tools to enhance patient-centered care. Semin Dial 25: 611–616, 2012pmid:23078102
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Parker PA,
    2. Baile WF,
    3. de Moor C,
    4. Lenzi R,
    5. Kudelka AP,
    6. Cohen L
    : Breaking bad news about cancer: Patients’ preferences for communication. J Clin Oncol 19: 2049–2056, 2001pmid:11283138
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Ryan H,
    2. Schofield P,
    3. Cockburn J,
    4. Butow P,
    5. Tattersall M,
    6. Turner J,
    7. Girgis A,
    8. Bandaranayake D,
    9. Bowman D
    : How to recognize and manage psychological distress in cancer patients. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 14: 7–15, 2005pmid:15698382
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Suchman AL,
    2. Markakis K,
    3. Beckman HB,
    4. Frankel R
    : A model of empathic communication in the medical interview. JAMA 277: 678–682, 1997pmid:9039890
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Back AL,
    2. Arnold RM,
    3. Baile WF,
    4. Tulsky JA,
    5. Fryer-Edwards K
    : Approaching difficult communication tasks in oncology. CA Cancer J Clin 55: 164–177, 2005pmid:15890639
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Evans WG,
    2. Tulsky JA,
    3. Back AL,
    4. Arnold RM
    : Communication at times of transitions: How to help patients cope with loss and re-define hope. Cancer J 12: 417–424, 2006pmid:17034677
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Back AL,
    2. Arnold RM
    : Dealing with conflict in caring for the seriously ill: “It was just out of the question.” JAMA 293: 1374–1381, 2005pmid:15769971
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    Shared Decision-Making in the Appropriate Initiation of and Withdrawal from Dialysis, Rockville, MD, Renal Physicians Association, 2010
  33. ↵
    1. Back AL,
    2. Arnold RM,
    3. Quill TE
    : Hope for the best, and prepare for the worst. Ann Intern Med 138: 439–443, 2003pmid:12614110
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Schell JO,
    2. Arnold RM
    : What are the ill effects of chronic dialysis? The benefits of a second conversation: How experience influences decision-making. Semin Dial 27: 21–22, 2014pmid:24261333
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Hickman SE,
    2. Nelson CA,
    3. Moss AH,
    4. Tolle SW,
    5. Perrin NA,
    6. Hammes BJ
    : The consistency between treatments provided to nursing facility residents and orders on the physician orders for life-sustaining treatment form. J Am Geriatr Soc 59: 2091–2099, 2011pmid:22092007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 9 (11)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 9, Issue 11
November 07, 2014
  • 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.
A Communication Framework for Dialysis Decision-Making for Frail Elderly Patients
(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
A Communication Framework for Dialysis Decision-Making for Frail Elderly Patients
Jane O. Schell, Robert A. Cohen
CJASN Nov 2014, 9 (11) 2014-2021; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.02190314

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
A Communication Framework for Dialysis Decision-Making for Frail Elderly Patients
Jane O. Schell, Robert A. Cohen
CJASN Nov 2014, 9 (11) 2014-2021; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.02190314
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Consideration of Treatment Paths for Patients Who May Do Poorly
    • SPIRES: Patient-Centered Communication Framework for Dialysis Decision-Making
    • Using Milestones and Pause Points to Define a Time-Limited Trial
    • Documenting and Revisiting the Care Plan
    • Conclusion
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgment
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Serious Illness Conversations in ESRD
  • Use of Causal Diagrams to Inform the Design and Interpretation of Observational Studies: An Example from the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP)
  • Climate Change and the Emergent Epidemic of CKD from Heat Stress in Rural Communities: The Case for Heat Stress Nephropathy
Show more Special Feature

Cited By...

  • Serious Illness Conversations in advanced kidney disease: a mixed-methods implementation study
  • Discussions during shared decision-making in older adults with advanced renal disease: a scoping review
  • Trends and Racial Disparities of Palliative Care Use among Hospitalized Patients with ESKD on Dialysis
  • A Conceptual Framework of Palliative Care across the Continuum of Advanced Kidney Disease
  • End of Life, Withdrawal, and Palliative Care Utilization among Patients Receiving Maintenance Hemodialysis Therapy
  • Emotional Impact of Illness and Care on Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease
  • Choice of Hemodialysis Access in Older Adults: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
  • Serious Illness Conversations in ESRD
  • Older patient considering treatment for advanced renal disease: protocol for a scoping review of the information available for shared decision-making
  • The Role of Time-Limited Trials in Dialysis Decision Making in Critically Ill Patients
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • CKD
  • children
  • pediatric nephrology

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