Nephrology providers' perspective and use of mortality prognostic tools in dialysis patients.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY BMC Nephrology Pub Date : 2024-11-26 DOI:10.1186/s12882-024-03861-y
Jennifer Bergeron, Christina Marchese, Colton Jensen, Sean Meagher, Amanda G Kennedy, Bradley Tompkins, Katharine L Cheung
{"title":"Nephrology providers' perspective and use of mortality prognostic tools in dialysis patients.","authors":"Jennifer Bergeron, Christina Marchese, Colton Jensen, Sean Meagher, Amanda G Kennedy, Bradley Tompkins, Katharine L Cheung","doi":"10.1186/s12882-024-03861-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mortality prognostic tools exist to aid in shared decision making with kidney failure patients but are underutilized. This study aimed to elucidate nephrology providers' practice patterns and understand barriers to prognostic tool use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Nephrology providers (8 physicians and 2 nurse practitioners) at an academic medical center underwent semi-structured interviews regarding their experience and perspective on the utility of mortality prognostic tools. Common themes were identified independently by 2 reviewers using grounded theory. Three six-month mortality prognostic tools were applied to the 279 prevalent dialysis patients that the interviewed providers care for. The C statistic was calculated for each tool via logistic regression and subsequent ROC analysis. Nephrology providers reviewed the performance of the prognostication tools in their own patient population. A post interview reassessed perspectives and any change in attitudes regarding the tools.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nephrology providers did not use these mortality prognostic tools in their practice. Key barriers identified were provider concern that the tools were not generalizable to their patients, providers' trust in their own clinical judgement over that of a prognostic tool, time constraints, and lack of knowledge about the data behind these tools. When re-interviewed with the results of the three prognostic tools in their patients, providers thought the tools performed as expected, but still did not intend to use the tools in their practice. They reported that these tools are good for populations, but not individual patients. The providers preferred to use clinical gestalt for prognostication.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although several well validated prognostic tools are available for predicting mortality, the nephrology providers studied do not use them in routine practice, even after an educational intervention. Other approaches should be explored to help incorporate prognostication in shared-decision-making for patients receiving dialysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":9089,"journal":{"name":"BMC Nephrology","volume":"25 1","pages":"425"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11590527/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Nephrology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-024-03861-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Mortality prognostic tools exist to aid in shared decision making with kidney failure patients but are underutilized. This study aimed to elucidate nephrology providers' practice patterns and understand barriers to prognostic tool use.

Methods: Nephrology providers (8 physicians and 2 nurse practitioners) at an academic medical center underwent semi-structured interviews regarding their experience and perspective on the utility of mortality prognostic tools. Common themes were identified independently by 2 reviewers using grounded theory. Three six-month mortality prognostic tools were applied to the 279 prevalent dialysis patients that the interviewed providers care for. The C statistic was calculated for each tool via logistic regression and subsequent ROC analysis. Nephrology providers reviewed the performance of the prognostication tools in their own patient population. A post interview reassessed perspectives and any change in attitudes regarding the tools.

Results: Nephrology providers did not use these mortality prognostic tools in their practice. Key barriers identified were provider concern that the tools were not generalizable to their patients, providers' trust in their own clinical judgement over that of a prognostic tool, time constraints, and lack of knowledge about the data behind these tools. When re-interviewed with the results of the three prognostic tools in their patients, providers thought the tools performed as expected, but still did not intend to use the tools in their practice. They reported that these tools are good for populations, but not individual patients. The providers preferred to use clinical gestalt for prognostication.

Conclusion: Although several well validated prognostic tools are available for predicting mortality, the nephrology providers studied do not use them in routine practice, even after an educational intervention. Other approaches should be explored to help incorporate prognostication in shared-decision-making for patients receiving dialysis.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肾内科医疗人员对透析患者死亡率预测工具的看法和使用。
背景:现有的死亡率预后工具可帮助肾衰竭患者共同决策,但未得到充分利用。本研究旨在阐明肾内科医疗人员的实践模式,并了解预后工具使用的障碍:方法: 一家学术医疗中心的肾内科医疗人员(8 名内科医生和 2 名执业护士)接受了半结构化访谈,了解了他们的经验和对死亡率预后工具效用的看法。两名审查员采用基础理论独立确定了共同主题。对受访医疗人员所护理的 279 名流行性透析患者应用了三种六个月死亡率预报工具。通过逻辑回归和随后的 ROC 分析计算出每种工具的 C 统计量。肾病学医疗服务提供者审查了预后工具在其患者群体中的表现。事后访谈重新评估了对这些工具的看法和态度变化:结果:肾内科医疗人员在实践中并未使用这些死亡率预后工具。结果:肾内科医疗人员没有在他们的临床实践中使用这些死亡率预后工具,主要障碍是医疗人员担心这些工具不能推广到他们的病人,医疗人员相信自己的临床判断而不是预后工具的判断,时间限制,以及对这些工具背后的数据缺乏了解。当再次就三种预后工具在患者身上的应用结果进行访谈时,医疗服务提供者认为这些工具的表现符合预期,但仍不打算在实践中使用这些工具。他们表示,这些工具适用于群体,但不适用于个体患者。医疗服务提供者更倾向于使用临床酝酿法来预测预后:结论:尽管有几种经过充分验证的预后工具可用于预测死亡率,但所研究的肾内科医疗人员并没有在日常工作中使用这些工具,即使是在经过教育干预后也是如此。应探索其他方法,帮助将预后纳入透析患者的共同决策中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Nephrology
BMC Nephrology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
375
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Nephrology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of kidney and associated disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
期刊最新文献
Association of insulin resistance with chronic kidney disease in individuals without diabetes in a community population in South China. Relationship between IgM deposition in the mesangial region and the prognosis of IgA nephropathy: a single-centre retrospective study. The impact of PPARγ and ApoE gene polymorphisms on susceptibility to diabetic kidney disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. Screening for cognitive symptoms in dialysis patients with an extended version of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Cognitive Function subscale (KDQOL-CF): a validation study. Major electrolyte disorder and associated factors among patients with chronic disease in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1