Providers’ experiences discussing care for patients with kidney failure who forgo kidney replacement therapy: A national qualitative study

Author:

Wong Susan P. Y.1ORCID,Chotivatanapong Julie1ORCID,Lee Deborah2,Lam Daniel Y.1,van Eijk Marieke S.3ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Medicine, University of Washington

2. Department of Medicine, Virginia Mason Medical Center

3. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington

Abstract

Background: Many nephrology providers express difficulty in discussing care options for patients who forgo kidney replacement therapy (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±13years, female 81%, White 32%) who participated in interviews, of which 43% were physicians and most (57%) practiced in academic settings. Three dominant themes emerged from interviews: 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 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.

Funder

National Palliative Care Research Center

Doris Duke Charitable Foundation

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3