European Nephrologists Views On Remote Patient Management For End-stage Kidney Disease

    Remote patient management (RPM) involves the collection of clinical, treatment-related, and subjective patient data outside clinical settings to be used by healthcare professionals to monitor and adapt treatments remotely. In the area of kidney replacement therapy (KRT), various applications are being used, with different features such as remote monitoring (continuous and automatic data collection), data analysis software (detecting deviating values and providing alerts), and communication tools (e.g. shared patient records, messaging service) [1].

 

    RPM may give patients more confidence to perform home dialysis and could reduce patients' administrative burden [1–3]. Moreover, the use of RPM was associated with better clinical parameters [4], better treatment adherence [5], fewer hospital visits [4–6], less travel time [6], and lower costs [5, 6].

 

    As with other forms of telemedicine, several barriers may limit the implementation and diffusion of RPM. Broens et al. [7] distinguished five categories of barriers: technical (e.g. users’ skills, data accessibility, presence of infrastructure such as the Internet), acceptance (e.g. users’ motivation and beliefs, evidence about efficacy), financial (e.g. implementation and maintenance costs), organizational (e.g. changing work practices, team roles, and responsibility) and policy and legislation (e.g. patients physical security and information security).

 

    It is yet unknown how often RPM is used by European nephrologists and the barriers they experience to using this technology. Some qualitative studies [8] describe the experiences of RPM users, but studies on barriers for non-users do not report nephrologists’ experiences [1]. Moreover, results from non-European countries cannot be generalized to Europe due to differences in geography, healthcare systems, digital skills, and technical infrastructure. Therefore we studied the use of, attitude towards, and added value of RPM and barriers for non-users among European nephrologists treating adults with KRT.

Click here to Kidney Tonic

 

    Between March and May 2019, we surveyed nephrologists with the Effect of Differing Kidney Disease Treatment Modalities and Organ Donation and Transplantation Practices on Health Expenditure and Patient Outcomes (EDITH) nephrologist survey [9]. The Medical Ethics Committee of Amsterdam UMC, location AMC in Amsterdam, The Netherlands waived the need for ethical approval, and individual participants provided informed consent. In this study, we in- cluded nephrologists who provided information on sex, age, and center characteristics. We reported quantitative results as pro-portions and performed a thematic content analysis of responses from open questions using Broens’model [7] to categorize bar-riders of non-users.

 

    In total, 519 nephrologists, 54% male, 29% < 40 years of age, 55% between 41 and 60 years of age, and 16% 司61years of age, from 33 European countries were included. The majority were employed in academic (57%) and public centers (78%) in urban areas (93%). Three-quarters (77%) worked in a center that treats 司100 patients per year with end-stage kidney disease. Thirty-three percent lived in a country with a low gross domestic product (GDP), 38% in a middle-GDP country, and 30% in a high-GDP country [9].

 

    Twenty-six percent already used RPM in their clinical practice, mostly for peritoneal dialysis (PD) (71%) (Figure 1A). Most nephrologists had a positive attitude towards RPM, with no significant difference between users and non-users (Figure 1B). Respondents believed that RPM could result in improved quality of care (64%), better patient management (61%), re- reduced resource use (50%), or fewer complications (47%) (Figure 1C). The most frequently selected reason for not using RPM was a lack of resources (85%); other reasons were a lack of awareness (27%), safety concerns (22%), and perceiving no advantages (9%) (Figure 1D).

FIGURE 1: Use of, attitudes towards, and added value of RPM and barriers for non-users. (A) Modalities used with RPM, (B) attitudes, (C) the added value of RPM, and (D) reasons for non-users. OCHD, out-center hemodialysis; HHD, home hemodialysis; LTX, living kidney donor transplantation; DTX, deceased kidney donor transplantation; CCM, comprehensive conservative management.

 

    We compared opinions from nephrologists living in low-, middle- and high-GDP countries in Europe and found no differences in the use of, attitude towards, or barriers to the use of RPM. Remarkably, respondents from both low- and high-GDP countries more frequently saw resource re- duction as a potential value (low 53%, middle 41%, high 57%; P < 0.05), while those from middle-GDP countries more frequently reported reducing the risk of complications (low 42%, middle 54%, high 43%; P <0.05). RPM was more frequently used for PD in middle- and high-GDP countries (low 56%, middle 71%, high 83%; P <0.05).

 

    We received 27 free-text comments from users and non-users on the added value of RPM (Supplementary data, Table S1). Respondents mentioned that RPM could improve care, especially for specific groups (older patients, working patients or remotely living patients). Moreover, RPM was believed to result in increased patient participation and home dialysis uptake. We received 41 free-text comments on reasons for not using RPM, covering all five categories of Brown’s model [7] (Supplementary data, Table S1). These included absent or re-restrictive legislation, problems with the acceptance of RPM by patients and nephrologists, insufficient technical infrastructure, and additional financial burden.

 

    Our findings show that European nephrologists were generally in favor of RPM and a quarter of the sample already used this technology. Many respondents thought that RPM would improve the quality of care and reduce resource use. Non-users frequently reported a lack of resources to use RPM. Several expressed concerns about the impact of the technology on daily practice and job satisfaction, but only a few were worried about safety.

    There is controversy in our findings about resource use. Half of the nephrologists believed that RPM could reduce resource use, while many non-users reported a lack of resources to use RPM. Respondents may have interpreted resources differently as financial, staff-related, or technical means. We hypothesize that the influence of RPM on resource use is related to the application’s features, practice organization (e.g. task division, arrangements about home visits), and the degree of RPM experience of healthcare professionals. Moreover, introducing RPM may be expensive, while the resource reduction may only become visible at a later stage. The current evidence on resource reduction is inconclusive [5, 6, 10].

 

    The current evidence on clinical outcomes and costs of RPM for patients receiving KRT is mainly based on small observational studies without a control group [4–6]. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have investigated long-term clinical outcomes of RPM such as complications, technique failure, and patient survival. Furthermore, several studies were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Three ongoing randomized controlled trials from France (in chronic kidney disease, dialysis, and transplant patients) and Canada and Mexico (only PD patients) with different RPM applications may generate more evidence on patient outcomes (clinical data, quality of life), healthcare professionals’experiences and costs [11–13].

 

    The strength of our study is the large, multinational sample. Selection and sampling bias is associated with web-based surveys and may have caused an overestimation of the use of RPM. Moreover, we were unable to calculate a response rate due to the indirect distribution of the survey. Furthermore, respondents may have had a different inter- predation of the definition of RPM. Lastly, this survey was completed before the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Outcomes may have changed, as remote care provision is currently more desirable, and more nephrologists may have gained experience with RPM.

 

    The findings of our study suggest that most nephrologists support RPM, but the absence of resources is a substantial barrier. For successful implementation one should, next to nephrologists, also involve nephrology nurses and patients. Older or vulnerable patients may also benefit from RPM but may experience more barriers to using this technology. Hopefully, ongoing studies will not only expand our knowledge of user ex- experience but also of the costs and outcomes of RPM.

 

    The authors wish to thank all the nephrologists and kidney transplant surgeons who filled out the EDITH nephrologist survey. In addition, we would like to thank all colleagues who pre-tested the survey, provided advice about ethical approval in their country, or helped to distribute the survey in their country or personal network. Among others, we are grateful for the support from Austria (R. Kramar, R. Oberbauer), Belarus (K. Komissarov), Belgium (F. Collart, J. De Meester, R. Vanholder), Croatia (I. Bubic, M. Buic/, M. Dragovic/, S. Z、ivic/ C´osic/), Cyprus (K. Ioannou), Czech Republic (I. Rychlik, V. Tesa), Denmark (J. Heaf, S. Schwartz Sørensen), Estonia (M. Rosenberg-Ots), Finland (P. Finne, V. Rauta), France (C. Couchoud, Z. Massy), Germany (M. Lingemann, A. Rahmel, C. Wanner), Greece (T. Apostolou, E. Dounousi, G. Moustakas), Hungary (O. Deme, S. Mihaly, G. Reu´sz), Ireland (W. Plant), Italy (G. Brunori, C. Carella, P. di Ciaccio, M. Postorino), Latvia (H. Cernevskis, A. Petersons), Malta (J. Buttigieg), Moldova (A. Tanase), Netherlands (F. van Ittersum, S. Logtenberg), North Macedonia (G. Spasovski, O. Stojceva-Taneva), Norway (A. A˚ sberg, M. Dahl Solbu, A. Varberg Reisæter), Poland (S. Dudzicz, M. Nowicki), Romania (L. Grneat¸, L. Tuta), Russia (A. Andrusev, H. Zakharova), Serbia (R. Naumovic), Slovakia (V. Spustova), Slovenia (J. Buturovic Ponikvar, D. Kovac), Spain (C. Alberich, J. Comas, M. del Pino y Pino, M. Ferrer Alamar, B. Mahillo), Sweden (M. Evans), Switzerland (P. Ambhl, U. Huynh-Do), Turkey (M. Arici, N. Seyahi), Ukraine (M. Kolesnyk), UK (S. Fraser, G. Lipkin) and the following organ- izations: European Kidney Transplant Association (EKITA) (I. Bellini, R. Langer), European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA; F. Trebelli), EuroPD (S. Davies) and Eurotransplant (P. Branger, M. van Meel, U. Samuel).

 

FUNDING

 

R.W.d.J., V.S.S., and K.J.J report grants from the European Union (Grant PP-01-2016) and from the ERA-EDTA during the conduct of the study. The funders did not have any role in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the report, or the decision to submit the report for publication.

 

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

 

Data cannot be shared publicly due to the privacy of individuals who participated in the study.

 

REFERENCES

 

1.    Koraishy FM, Rohatgi R. Telenephrology: an emerging platform for delivering renal health care. Am J Kidney Dis 2020; 76: 417–426

2.    Subramanian L, Kirk R, Cuttitta T, et al. Remote management for peritoneal dialysis: a qualitative study of patient, care partner, and clinician perceptions and priorities in the United States and the United Kingdom. Kidney Med 2019; 1: 354–365

3.    Walker RC, Tong A, Howard K, et al. Patients’ and caregivers’ expectations and experiences of remote monitoring for peritoneal dialysis: a qualitative interview study. Perit Dial Int 2020; 40: 540–547

4.    Bunch A, Vesga JI, Camargo DO, et al. Remote automated peritoneal dialysis management in Colombia. Kidney Int Rep 2019; 4: 873–876

5.    Schmid A, Hils S, Kramer-Zucker A et al. Telemedically supported case management of living-donor renal transplant recipients to optimize routine evidence-based aftercare: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Transplant 2017; 17: 1594– 1605

6.    Milan Manani S, Rosner MH, Virzi GM, et al. Longitudinal experience with remote monitoring for automated peritoneal dialysis patients. Nephron 2019; 142: 1–9  Determinants of successful telemedicine implementations: a literature study. J Telemed Telecare 2007; 13:                    303–309

8.    Walker RC, Tong A, Howard K, Palmer SC. Clinicians’ experiences with remote patient monitoring in peritoneal dialysis: a semi-structured interview study. Perit Dial Int 2020; 40: 202–208  nephrologist survey on factors influencing treatment modality choice for end-stage kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2021; DOI: 10. 1093/ndt/gfaa342

10. Hendra H, Pharro GJ, Lewis S et al. Impact of peritoneal dialysis (PD) re- mote monitoring on PD Services. J Am Soc Nephrol 2018; 29: 596

11. Thilly N, Chanliau J, Format L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of home telemonitoring- ing in chronic kidney disease patients at different stages by a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (eNephro): rationale and study design. BMC Nephrol 2017; 18: 126

12. Coordinacio´n de Investigacio´n en Salud, Mexico. Utility of telemedicine in the follow-up of patients in peritoneal dialysis (NCT04034966). https://clini caltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04034966 (22 February 2021, date last accessed)

13. Lawson Health Research Institute. Assessment of telephone monitoring in patients on peritoneal dialysis: a multicentre randomized controlled trial (CONNECT). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02670512 (8 March 8, 2021, date last accessed)

 

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION: 1595715123@qq.com