Eduardo Lacson

Recent studies demonstrated an association between depressive affect and higher mortality risk in incident hemodialysis patients. This study sought to determine whether an association also exists with hospitalization risk. All 8776 adult incident hemodialysis patients with Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 survey results treated in Fresenius Medical Care North America facilities in 2006 were followed for 1 year from the date of survey, and all hospitalization events lasting >24 hours were tracked. A depressive affect score was derived from responses to two Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 questions ("down in the dumps" and "downhearted and blue"). A high depressive affect score corresponded with an average response of "some of the time" or more frequent occurrence. Cox and Poisson models were constructed to determine associations of depressive affect scores with risk for time to first hospitalization and risk for hospitalization events, as well as total days spent in the hospital, respectively. Incident patients with high depressive affect score made up 41% of the cohort and had a median (interquartile range) hospitalization event rate of one (0, 3) and 4 (0, 15) total hospital days; the values for patients with low depressive affect scores were one (0, 2) event and 2 (0, 11) days, respectively. For high-scoring patients, the adjusted hazard ratio for first hospitalization was 1.12 (1.04, 1.20). When multiple hospital events were considered, the adjusted risk ratio was 1.13 (1.02, 1.25) and the corresponding risk ratio for total hospital days was 1.20 (1.07, 1.35). High depressive affect score was generally associated with lower physical and mental component scores, but these covariates were adjusted for in the models. Depressive affect in incident hemodialysis patients was associated with higher risk of hospitalization and more hospital days. Future studies are needed to investigate the effect of therapeutic interventions to address depressive affect in this high-risk population.

Challenged by the observation that newly admitted dialysis patients were often unaware of their treatment options, Fresenius Medical Care, North America developed a program to improve information delivered to chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients prior to their need for renal replacement therapy. Six years ago, the Treatment Options Program (TOPs) was established utilizing a standardized approach to educate individuals with CKD Stages 3 and 4. The program education focuses on modality and vascular access options. A key component includes follow‐up at predetermined intervals, offering additional education and patient reminders to continue to work with their physician in selecting a preferred renal replacement modality. Since program inception, over 73,000 individuals have been educated through TOPs. Home therapy utilization as first treatment is higher in the patient population that received TOPs education. Similarly, participants had a higher rate of permanent vascular access with decreased use of hemodialysis catheters upon admission. Avoiding hemodialysis catheter use and expanding home therapy utilization both offer potential benefits to all stakeholders: patients, providers, and payors, particularly as we move toward accountable healthcare systems. The ability to expand the TOPs program relies on seeing patients early enough to allow each patient time to process the information and work with their physician to select the modality and access that best meets their healthcare and lifestyle needs. Educating our patients facilitates empowerment and active participation in their therapy, a much coveted component of patient‐centered health care for the renal provider community as we look to the future.

The Medical Director is responsible for all levels of quality patient care in the facility as mandated by the 2008 revision of the Medicare Conditions for Coverage of dialysis facilities. He/she is the leader and primary individual tasked with ensuring that facility processes are in place to meet or exceed key quality goals or adopt new ones and prioritize them appropriately—all to drive improved facility performance, particularly the ultimate outcomes of morbidity and mortality rates. Management of vascular access, dialysis dose, mineral metabolism, acid‐base balance, sodium and fluid management, anemia, among other aspects of care, have representative intermediate clinical outcomes that are often called “surrogate” or “process” measures—because they may reflect the quality of care delivery while impacting “primary” outcomes such as death and hospitalization. The proportion of dialysis patients within a dialysis facility meeting a selected group among these goals has become the standard “care process” metric since the 1990s. Evidence supports its use, in that graded improvements in the facility patients’ primary outcomes have been documented as more patients in a facility achieved a greater number of these “process” goals. A caveat: these process measures do not represent overall quality by themselves because nonclinical processes also influence primary outcomes. Nevertheless, process improvement in meeting facility goals should be led by the Medical Director, particularly those with the strongest links to primary outcomes such as reduction of hemodialysis catheter exposure, forming the cornerstone of quality improvement efforts. Specific recommendations on how to effectively lead a care team to achieve these goals are discussed.