Mohua Basu

The effect of nurse navigation on timeliness of breast cancer care at an academic comprehensive cancer center

A patient navigation process is required for accreditation by the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC). Patient navigation has previously been shown to improve timely diagnosis in patients with breast cancer. This study sought to assess the effect of nurse navigation on timeliness of care following the diagnosis of breast cancer by comparing patients who were treated in a comprehensive cancer center with and without the assistance of nurse navigation.

iChoose Kidney: A Clinical Decision Aid for Kidney Transplantation Versus Dialysis Treatment.

Background Despite a significant survival advantage of kidney transplantation compared with dialysis, nearly one third of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are not educated about kidney transplantation as a treatment option at the time of ESRD diagnosis. Access to individualized, evidence-based prognostic information is needed to facilitate and encourage shared decision making about the clinical implications of whether to pursue transplantation or long-term dialysis. Methods We used a national cohort of incident ESRD patients in the US Renal Data System surveillance registry from 2005 to 2011 to develop and validate prediction models for risk of 1- and 3-year mortality among dialysis versus kidney transplantation. Using these data, we developed a mobile clinical decision aid that provides estimates of risks of death and survival on dialysis compared with kidney transplantation patients. Results Factors included in the mortality risk prediction models for dialysis and transplantation included age, race/ethnicity, dialysis vintage, and comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and low albumin. Among the validation cohorts, the discriminatory ability of the model for 3-year mortality was moderate (c statistic, 0.7047; 95% confidence interval, 0.7029-0.7065 for dialysis and 0.7015; 95% confidence interval, 0.6875-0.7155 for transplant). We used these risk prediction models to develop an electronic, user-friendly, mobile (iPad, iPhone, and website) clinical decision aid called iChoose Kidney. Conclusions The use of a mobile clinical decision aid comparing individualized mortality risk estimates for dialysis versus transplantation could enhance communication between ESRD patients and their clinicians when making decisions about treatment options.

Transplant Center Patient Navigator and Access to Transplantation among High-Risk Population A Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Barriers exist in access to kidney transplantation, where minority and patients with low socioeconomic status are less likely to complete transplant evaluation. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a transplant center-based patient navigator in helping patients at high risk of dropping out of the transplant evaluation process access the kidney transplant waiting list. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS & MEASUREMENTS We conducted a randomized, controlled trial of 401 patients (n=196 intervention and n=205 control) referred for kidney transplant evaluation (January 2013 to August 2014; followed through May 2016) at a single center. A trained navigator assisted intervention participants from referral to waitlisting decision to increase waitlisting (primary outcome) and decrease time from referral to waitlisting (secondary outcome). Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine differences in waitlisting between intervention and control patients. RESULTS At study end, waitlisting was not significantly different among intervention (32%) versus control (26%) patients overall (P=0.17), and time from referral to waitlisting was 126 days longer for intervention patients. However, the effectiveness of the navigator varied from early (<500 days from referral) to late (≥500 days) follow-up. Although no difference in waitlisting was observed among intervention (50%) versus control (50%) patients in the early period (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.53), intervention patients were 3.3 times more likely to be waitlisted after 500 days (75% versus 25%; hazard ratio, 3.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.20 to 9.12). There were no significant differences in intervention versus control patients who started evaluation (85% versus 79%; P=0.11) or completed evaluation (58% versus 51%; P=0.14); however, intervention patients had more living donor inquiries (18% versus 10%; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS A transplant center-based navigator targeting disadvantaged patients improved waitlisting but not until after 500 days of follow-up. However, the absolute effect was relatively small.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Mobile Clinical Decision Aid to Improve Access to Kidney Transplantation: iChoose Kidney

Introduction Kidney transplantation is the preferred treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease, as it substantially increases a patient’s survival and is cost-saving compared to a lifetime of dialysis. However, transplantation is not universally chosen by patients with renal failure, and limited knowledge about the survival benefit of transplantation versus dialysis may play a role. We created a mobile application clinical decision aid called iChoose Kidney to improve access to individualized prognosis information comparing dialysis and transplantation outcomes. Methods We describe the iChoose Kidney study, a randomized controlled trial designed to test the clinical efficacy of a mobile health decision aid among end-stage renal disease patients referred for kidney transplantation at 3 large, diverse transplant centers across the United States. Approximately 450 patients will be randomized to receive either (i) standard of care or “usual” transplantation education, or (ii) standard of care plus iChoose Kidney. Results The primary outcome is change in knowledge about the survival benefit of kidney transplantation versus dialysis from baseline to immediate follow-up; secondary outcomes include change in treatment preferences, improved decisional conflict, and increased access to kidney transplantation. Analyses are also planned to examine effectiveness across subgroups of race, socioeconomic status, health literacy, and health numeracy. Discussion Engaging patients in health care choices can increase patient empowerment and improve knowledge and understanding of treatment choices. If the effectiveness of iChoose Kidney has a greater impact on patients with low health literacy, lower socioeconomic status, and minority race, this decision aid could help reduce disparities in access to kidney transplantation.

The ASCENT (Allocation System Changes for Equity in Kidney Transplantation) Study: A Randomized Effectiveness-Implementation Study to Improve Kidney Transplant Waitlisting and Reduce Racial Disparity

Introduction The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) implemented a new Kidney Allocation System (KAS) in December 2014 that is expected to substantially reduce racial disparities in kidney transplantation among waitlisted patients. However, not all dialysis facility clinical providers and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are aware of how the policy change could improve access to transplantation. Methods We describe the ASCENT (Allocation System Changes for Equity in Kidney Transplantation) study, a randomized, controlled effectiveness-implementation study designed to test the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention to improve access to the early steps of kidney transplantation among dialysis facilities across the United States. The multicomponent intervention consists of an educational webinar for dialysis medical directors, an educational video for patients and an educational video for dialysis staff, and a dialysis facility−specific transplantation performance feedback report. Materials will be developed by a multidisciplinary dissemination advisory board and will undergo formative testing in dialysis facilities across the United States. Results This study is estimated to enroll ∼600 US dialysis facilities with low waitlisting in all 18 ESRD networks. The co-primary outcomes include change in waitlisting and waitlist disparity at 1 year; secondary outcomes include changes in facility medical director knowledge about KAS, staff training regarding KAS, patient education regarding transplantation, and the intent of the medical director to refer patients for transplantation evaluation. Discussion The results from the ASCENT study will demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention designed to increase access to the deceased donor kidney waitlist and to reduce racial disparities in waitlisting.

Effect of the iChoose Kidney decision aid in improving knowledge about treatment options among transplant candidates: A randomized controlled trial

We previously developed a mobile‐ and web‐based decision aid (iChoose Kidney) that displays individualized risk estimates of survival and mortality, for the treatment modalities of dialysis versus kidney transplantation. We examined the effect of iChoose Kidney on change in transplant knowledge and access to transplant in a randomized controlled trial among patients presenting for evaluation in three transplant centers. A total of 470 patients were randomized to standard transplantation education (control) or standard education plus iChoose Kidney (intervention). Change in transplant knowledge (primary outcome) among intervention versus control patients was assessed using nine items in pre‐ and postevaluation surveys. Access to transplant (secondary outcome) was defined as a composite of waitlisting, living donor inquiries, or transplantation. Among 443 patients (n = 226 intervention; n = 216 control), the mean knowledge scores were 5.1 ± 2.1 pre‐ and 5.8 ± 1.9 postevaluation. Change in knowledge was greater among intervention (1.1 ± 2.0) versus control (0.4 ± 1.8) patients (P < .0001). Access to transplantation was similar among intervention (n = 168; 74.3%) versus control patients (n = 153; 70.5%; P = .37). The iChoose Kidney decision aid improved patient knowledge at evaluation, but did not impact transplant access. Future studies should examine whether combining iChoose Kidney with other interventions can increase transplantation. (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02235571)

Awareness of the New Kidney Allocation System among United States Dialysis Providers with Low Waitlisting

It is unknown whether dialysis facility staff are aware of the new kidney allocation system implemented in December 2014, which changed how deceased donor kidneys are allocated and waiting time is calculated. U.S. dialysis facilities with low annual waitlisting (<15.2%) were surveyed as part of a large randomized study. Among 653 facilities, 57.9% of staff were aware of the policy change, with medical directors (84.4%) being more aware than social workers (73.3%), facility administrators (53.1%), nurse managers (46.4%), and other staff (43.8%). Targeted education among dialysis facilities with low waitlisting may help extend the reach of the new policy.

Decisional Conflict between Treatment Options among End-Stage Renal Disease Patients Evaluated for Kidney Transplantation

Although kidney transplantation provides a significant benefit over dialysis, many patients with end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) are conflicted about their decision to undergo kidney transplant. We aimed to identify the prevalence and characteristics associated with decisional conflict between treatment options in ESRD patients presenting for transplant evaluation. Among a cross‐sectional sample of patients with ESRD (n=464) surveyed in 2014 and 2015, we assessed decisional conflict through a validated 10‐item questionnaire. Decisional conflict was dichotomized into no decisional conflict (score=0) and any decisional conflict (score>0). We investigated potential characteristics of patients with decisional conflict using bivariate and multivariable logistic regression. The overall mean age was 50.6 years, with 62% male patients and 48% African American patients. Nearly half (48.5%) of patients had decisional conflict regarding treatment options. Characteristics significantly associated with decisional conflict in multivariable analysis included male sex, lower educational attainment, and less transplant knowledge. Understanding characteristics associated with decisional conflict in patients with ESRD could help identify patients who may benefit from targeted interventions to help patients make informed, value‐based, and supported decisions when deciding how to best treat their kidney disease.

Racial disparities in preemptive referral for kidney transplantation in Georgia

Racial disparities persist in access to kidney transplantation. Racial differences in preemptive referral, or referral prior to dialysis start, may explain this discrepancy.

Racial/ethnic disparities in waitlisting for deceased donor kidney transplantation 1 year after implementation of the new national kidney allocation system

The impact of a new national kidney allocation system (KAS) on access to the national deceased‐donor waiting list (waitlisting) and racial/ethnic disparities in waitlisting among US end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is unknown. We examined waitlisting pre‐ and post‐KAS among incident (N = 1 253 100) and prevalent (N = 1 556 954) ESRD patients from the United States Renal Data System database (2005‐2015) using multivariable time‐dependent Cox and interrupted time‐series models. The adjusted waitlisting rate among incident patients was 9% lower post‐KAS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90‐0.93), although preemptive waitlisting increased from 30.2% to 35.1% (P < .0001). The waitlisting decrease is largely due to a decline in inactively waitlisted patients. Pre‐KAS, blacks had a 19% lower waitlisting rate vs whites (HR: 0.81; 95% CI, 0.80‐0.82); following KAS, disparity declined to 12% (HR: 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85‐0.90). In adjusted time‐series analyses of prevalent patients, waitlisting rates declined by 3.45/10 000 per month post‐KAS (P < .001), resulting in ≈146 fewer waitlisting events/month. Shorter dialysis vintage was associated with greater decreases in waitlisting post‐KAS (P < .001). Racial disparity reduction was due in part to a steeper decline in inactive waitlisting among minorities and a greater proportion of actively waitlisted minority patients. Waitlisting and racial disparity in waitlisting declined post‐KAS; however, disparity remains.