Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37962726›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2024

Concurrent Hospice and Dialysis Care: Considerations for Implementation.

Natalie C Ernecoff, Mayumi T Robinson, Erica M Motter, Alexandra E Bursic, Keith Lagnese, Robert Taylor, Dale Lupu, Jane O Schell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Natalie C ErnecoffRAND Corporation, 4570 Fifth Avenue, #600, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. nernecof@rand.org.
Mayumi T RobinsonDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Erica M MotterDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Alexandra E BursicDivision of Renal-Electrolyte, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Keith LagneseOptum Home & Community Care, Landmark Health, Huntington Beach, CA, USA.
Robert TaylorDialysis Clinic, Inc, Nashville, TN, USA.
Dale LupuSchool of Nursing, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Jane O SchellDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Funding

Training in Renal, GI, Endocrine, and Epithelial BiologyT35DK065521 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI DEFRANCO, DONALD B, JURCZAK, MICHAEL J. · 2004 to 2024
$811k
NIDDK NIH HHS T35 DK065521
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceHospice positively impacts care at the end of life for patients and their families. However, compared to the general Medicare population, patients on dialysis are half as likely to receive hospice. Concurrent hospice and dialysis care offers an opportunity to improve care for people living with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).

objectiveWe sought to (1) develop a conceptual model of the Program and (2) identify key components, resources, and considerations for further implementation.

designWe conducted a template analysis of qualitative interviews and convened a community advisory panel (CAP) to get feedback on current concurrent care design and considerations for dissemination and implementation.

participantsThirty-nine patients with late-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD), family caregivers, bereaved family caregivers, hospice clinicians, nephrology clinicians, administrators, and policy experts participated in interviews. A purposive subset of 19 interviewees composed the CAP. MAIN MEASURES: Qualitative feedback on concurrent care design refinements, implementation, and resources. KEY

resultsParticipants identified four themes that define an effective model of concurrent hospice and dialysis: it requires (1) timely goals-of-care conversations and (2) an interdisciplinary approach; (3) clear guidelines ensure smooth transitions for patients and families; and (4) hospice payment policy must support concurrent care. CAP participants provided feedback on the phases of an effective model of concurrent hospice and dialysis, and resources, including written and interactive educational materials, communication tools, workflow processes, and order sets.

conclusionsWe developed a conceptual model for concurrent hospice and dialysis care and a corresponding resource list. In addition to policy changes, clinical implementation and educational resources can facilitate scalable and equitable dissemination of concurrent care. Concurrent hospice and dialysis care must be systematically evaluated via a hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial that includes the resources outlined herein, based on our conceptual model of concurrent care delivery.

Indexed as

Hospice CareKidney Failure, ChronicPatient Care PlanningRenal DialysisAdultAgedBereavementCaregiversFamilyFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPalliative CarePatient Care Team

Identifiers

PMID37962726
PMCPMC11043284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.