Providers' Experiences Discussing Care for Patients with Kidney Failure Who Forgo KRT: A National Qualitative Study.

IF 8.5 1区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Susan P Y Wong, Julie Chotivatanapong, Deborah Lee, Daniel Y Lam, Marieke S van Eijk
{"title":"Providers' Experiences Discussing Care for Patients with Kidney Failure Who Forgo KRT: A National Qualitative Study.","authors":"Susan P Y Wong, Julie Chotivatanapong, Deborah Lee, Daniel Y Lam, Marieke S van Eijk","doi":"10.2215/CJN.0000000000000522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many nephrology providers express difficulty in discussing care options for patients who forgo KRT, which hampers their ability to help patients make decisions about their current and future treatment of kidney disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a qualitative study using interviews with a national sample of nephrology providers (i.e., physicians and advanced practice providers) who participated in US professional societies between July and December 2022. We performed a thematic analysis of interviews to identify emergent themes reflecting providers' experiences discussing care for patients who forgo KRT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 21 providers (age 54±13 years, female 81%, White 32%) who participated in interviews, of whom 43% were physicians and most (57%) practiced in academic settings. Three dominant themes emerged from interviews reflecting challenges to discussing the option to forgo KRT: (1) Inconsistent terminology: while providers sought to use terms to describe care for patients who forgo KRT that affirmed patients' decision, clearly conveyed that KRT would not be pursued, and were already familiar to patients and other providers, they disagreed about which terms satisfied these priorities; (2) blurred distinctions between KRT and its alternative: providers' descriptions of their care practices suggested that differences in their approaches to caring for patients who forgo KRT and those who are planning to pursue KRT could be opaque; and (3) deciphering patients' decision to forgo KRT: providers did not readily accept patients' expressed preferences to forgo KRT at face value and described using a variety of methods to assess whether patients would follow through with their decision.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Providers used different, inconsistent terms to describe care for patients who forgo KRT. They disagreed about what this care entailed and were uncertain about what patients might mean when they express not wanting to undergo KRT.</p>","PeriodicalId":50681,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11469789/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.0000000000000522","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Many nephrology providers express difficulty in discussing care options for patients who forgo KRT, which hampers their ability to help patients make decisions about their current and future treatment of kidney disease.

Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using interviews with a national sample of nephrology providers (i.e., physicians and advanced practice providers) who participated in US professional societies between July and December 2022. We performed a thematic analysis of interviews to identify emergent themes reflecting providers' experiences discussing care for patients who forgo KRT.

Results: There were 21 providers (age 54±13 years, female 81%, White 32%) who participated in interviews, of whom 43% were physicians and most (57%) practiced in academic settings. Three dominant themes emerged from interviews reflecting challenges to discussing the option to forgo KRT: (1) Inconsistent terminology: while providers sought to use terms to describe care for patients who forgo KRT that affirmed patients' decision, clearly conveyed that KRT would not be pursued, and were already familiar to patients and other providers, they disagreed about which terms satisfied these priorities; (2) blurred distinctions between KRT and its alternative: providers' descriptions of their care practices suggested that differences in their approaches to caring for patients who forgo KRT and those who are planning to pursue KRT could be opaque; and (3) deciphering patients' decision to forgo KRT: providers did not readily accept patients' expressed preferences to forgo KRT at face value and described using a variety of methods to assess whether patients would follow through with their decision.

Conclusions: Providers used different, inconsistent terms to describe care for patients who forgo KRT. They disagreed about what this care entailed and were uncertain about what patients might mean when they express not wanting to undergo KRT.

医疗服务提供者在讨论如何护理放弃 KRT 的肾衰竭患者时的经验:一项全国性定性研究。
背景:许多肾病学医疗机构在讨论放弃 KRT 的患者的治疗方案时表示存在困难,这阻碍了他们帮助患者就当前和未来的肾病治疗做出决定的能力:我们对 2022 年 7 月至 12 月间参加美国专业协会的全国肾脏病医疗人员(即医生和高级医疗人员)进行了一次定性研究。我们对访谈进行了主题分析,以确定反映医疗服务提供者在讨论对放弃 KRT 患者的护理经验时出现的主题:共有 21 名医疗服务提供者(年龄为 54±13 岁,女性占 81%,白人占 32%)参加了访谈,其中 43% 是医生,大多数(57%)在学术机构执业。访谈中出现了三个主要的主题,反映了讨论放弃 KRT 这一选择所面临的挑战:(1)术语不一致:虽然医疗服务提供者试图使用肯定患者决定、明确表达不进行 KRT 以及患者和其他医疗服务提供者已经熟悉的术语来描述对放弃 KRT 患者的护理,但他们对哪些术语符合这些优先事项存在分歧;(2)KRT 及其替代方案之间的区别模糊不清:医疗服务提供者对其护理实践的描述表明,他们对放弃 KRT 的患者和计划接受 KRT 的患者的护理方法可能存在不明显的差异;(3) 破解患者放弃 KRT 的决定:医疗服务提供者并不轻易接受患者所表达的放弃 KRT 的表面价值,他们描述了使用各种方法来评估患者是否会执行其决定。结论:医疗服务提供者使用了不同的、不一致的术语来描述对放弃 KRT 患者的护理。他们对这种护理的内容存在分歧,也不确定患者在表示不想接受 KRT 时可能表达的意思。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
3.10%
发文量
514
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology strives to establish itself as the foremost authority in communicating and influencing advances in clinical nephrology by (1) swiftly and effectively disseminating pivotal developments in clinical and translational research in nephrology, encompassing innovations in research methods and care delivery; (2) providing context for these advances in relation to future research directions and patient care; and (3) becoming a key voice on issues with potential implications for the clinical practice of nephrology, particularly within the United States. Original manuscript topics cover a range of areas, including Acid/Base and Electrolyte Disorders, Acute Kidney Injury and ICU Nephrology, Chronic Kidney Disease, Clinical Nephrology, Cystic Kidney Disease, Diabetes and the Kidney, Genetics, Geriatric and Palliative Nephrology, Glomerular and Tubulointerstitial Diseases, Hypertension, Maintenance Dialysis, Mineral Metabolism, Nephrolithiasis, and Transplantation.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信