Honoring Individual Goals and Hopes: Implementing Advance Care Planning for Persons With Kidney Disease on Dialysis

Kidney Diseases Clinical Trial

— HIGHway  

Official title:

HIGHway Project: Honoring Individual Goals and Hopes: Implementing Advance Care Planning for Persons With Kidney Disease on Dialysis

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Enrolling by invitation

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT05324878
• Other study ID #: NCR213481
• Secondary ID: DI-2020C2-20362
• Status: Enrolling by invitation
• Start date: September 1, 2021
• Est. completion date: July 1, 2024

Study information

• Verified date: June 2023
• Source: George Washington University
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Observational

Clinical Trial Summary

The PCORI HIGHway project name embodies its goal: the way to "Honor Individuals Goals and Hopes". HIGHway trains and supports dialysis center social workers and nurses to communicate with their patients about their hopes and goals for their future care plans. This process, known as advance care planning (ACP), helps relieve patient concerns about the future, lays the foundation for better goal-concordant care at the end of life, and fosters deeper connection between patient and the dialysis care team. The HIGHway project will provide training and ongoing coaching to social workers and other change team members at 50-60 dialysis centers throughout the US. The goal is to integrate advance care planning conversations between dialysis patients and their health care team into the ongoing workflow of dialysis centers. The project is funded by the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), a non-profit organization chartered by Congress to fund projects to promote patient-centered care.

Description:

OBJECTIVES Primary Objective: The HIGHWay project trains dialysis center teams to conduct ACP conversations with patients with kidney failure. Emphasis is on training and supporting the dialysis center social worker to be the team leader for ACP, in collaboration with the nephrologist and other clinicians. Aims: 1. Implement the HIGHway intervention with a project team consisting of a social worker, nephrologist and nurse at 50 clinics, and train them to conduct ACP using best practices. 2. Assist social workers/nurses to implement ACP into their regular workflow with personal coaching, webinars and multimedia teaching materials. 3. Use a dedicated web-based application software to guide social workers/nurses on the ACP process of patients in dialysis centers and provide resources for holding ACP conversations. 4. Provide ongoing coaching through monthly teleconferences to bolster social worker/nurse skills through case discussion and mentoring. 5. Develop a long-term implementation and scale-up plan for training social workers/nurses in ACP in different dialysis centers in conjunction with the Coalition for Supportive Care of Kidney Patients, Forum of ESRD Networks, the National Council of Nephrology Social Workers, the National Renal Administrators Association, and dialysis organizations. RELEVANT BACKGROUND Patient-centered care problem addressed: Patients on dialysis want to discuss their preferences for treatment at the end of life, but few do so, and most nephrologists are reluctant or feel unprepared to lead such discussions. Effective tools are critically needed to elicit such preferences since over 50,000 Americans die of kidney disease annually, more than from breast or prostate cancer. For dialysis patients with significant co-morbidities, risk of death within a year of starting dialysis is stark. Of those who had 4 or more comorbidities, 26% died within 30 days of dialysis initiation, and 60% died within a year. These patients have higher - and often unwanted - intensity of care at end of life; in a four-year study of the United States Renal Data System, 49% of elderly long-term hemodialysis (HD) patients spent time in an intensive care unit in their final month of life, compared with 24% of cancer patients. Meaningful end-of-life conversations can change these outcomes and are associated with increased hospice referral, less aggressive and expensive medical treatment, and higher levels of family satisfaction. Yet less than 10% of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients report having a conversation about any end-of-life issues with their nephrologist in the previous year, although 90% said such conversations were important. Few patients with ESRD engage in ACP, and the vast majority lack a written advance directive or surrogate decision maker, leaving them unprepared to provide guidance in medical decisions in a crisis. A prior study funded by PCORI developed and tested an intervention to enable more advance care planning to take place in dialysis centers. The Shared Decision Making - Renal Supportive Care (SDM-RSC) study tested a multi-modal patient-centered intervention to improve advance care planning for dialysis patients. Through qualitative interviews with advisory boards comprised of patients and stakeholders, SDM-RSC investigators designed an intervention that focused on goals of care conversations between patients and family members with the nephrologist and social worker. The SDM-RSC intervention targeted deficiencies in communication, estimating prognosis, and transition planning for seriously ill dialysis patients. The intervention showed capacity to increase substantially completion of advance directives and medical orders (Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment [MOLST]/Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment [POLST]) associated with improved patient-level end-of-life (EOL) outcomes. Among study participants, the advance directive completion rate and understanding of advance directives were substantially higher than in usual care; 75% of participants named and documented a healthcare proxy and 63% had medical orders (MOLST or POLST) (in comparison to 49% with advance directives and 3% with medical orders in usual care). The average duration time for an ACP conversation was about 45 minutes. Overall clinic-level hospice usage using retrospective data did not vary significantly between the pre- and post-intervention 6-month periods with an observed average rate of 25% which is close to the 2015 national average of 26% among all ESRD Medicare decedents. However, among deceased study participants who engaged in a Shared Decision Making and Renal Supportive Care (SDMRSC) meeting, 48% voluntarily withdrew from dialysis prior to death and 39% received hospice services (compared to the overall rate in these dialysis centers of 24.8%). There were high levels of family satisfaction (FAMCARE results) and no adverse intervention effects on patients or surrogates on measures of depression and health-related quality of life. The stakeholder advisory council and the respondents on post-intervention interviews recommended the following: a) streamlining and focusing the social worker training; b) offering the advance care planning conversation to all dialysis patients, not just those who were seriously ill, c) broadening the population to include home dialysis patients; and d) offering a telehealth option for conducting the discussions. The current study builds on the SDM-RSC results to implement the revised intervention in a broader population with a larger number of participating dialysis centers.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Enrolling by invitation
• Enrollment: 50
• Est. completion date: July 1, 2024
• Est. primary completion date: May 1, 2024
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Social worker or nurse must work at a participating dialysis center.
• Social worker, nurse and patients must speak, read and write English.
• All participants must be 18 y old.
• Social workers and nurses Commitment to attend initial 6-h training and booster sessions.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Under 18 years old
• Unable to speak, read and write English

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Kidney Diseases
• Kidney Failure
• Renal Insufficiency

Intervention

Other:
• Training
Social workers/nurses participants are agreeing to participating in the training program (3 sessions of 2 hours over a period of six weeks - one session every 2 weeks), follow up training sessions (occurring monthly), mentorship calls with social worker faculty on the project team, recording one conversation between social worker and a patient for quality improvement purposes, and completing evaluation of the project interventions (5-minute questionnaire after each education session, 15-minute questionnaire at end of participation in project).

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	American Renal Associates LLC Corporate Office	Beverly	Massachusetts
United States	DaVita World Headquarters	Denver	Colorado
United States	Fresenius Medical Care Corporate Headquarters	Waltham	Massachusetts

Sponsors (4)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
George Washington University	Medical Technology and Practice Patterns Institute, University of New Mexico, Western Carolina University

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Advance care conversations attempted, held, documented	Patient/Provider Outcome: Self-report of number of conversations social worker has with dialysis patients Self -report of number of conversations social worker has with dialysis patients.	During the implementation of the project, one report, year 1
Primary	Fidelity of ACP conversations per the HIGHway process taught in trainings	Each social worker will record one ACP conversation with a patient and be assessed on their fidelity to the ACP conversation checklist	Through implementation completion, one in year 1
Primary	Relevance and Significance of ACP intervention for patients	Survey given to patients after an ACP conversation to assess relevance and significance of the conversation to their care	Through implementation completion, one in year 1
Secondary	Implementation Outcome: Appropriateness	The perceived fit, relevance, or compatibility of the innovation for a given practice setting, provider, or consumer; to address an issue	After finish implementation, one time, year 1
Secondary	Implementation Outcome: Acceptability	Perception that a given treatment, service, practice, or innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory.	Immediately after finish implementation, one in year 1
Secondary	Characteristics of HIGHway Approach	Perceived usefulness of each element of HIGHway	Immediately after finish implementation, one in year 1
Secondary	Feasibility of HIGHway	The extent to which HIGHway was successfully used or carried out	Immediately after finish implementation, one in year 1

External Links

•   PCORI Website Project Page