A National Survey of Conservative Kidney Management Practices for Patients Who Forgo RRT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Key Points In the largest survey of US nephrology providers on conservative kidney management (CKM), most reported limited experience with CKM and varied approaches and local resources to provide CKM. There is need to enhance provider training and surveillance of CKM practices and to develop models of CKM that optimize care delivery and outcomes for these patients. Background Clinical practice guidelines advocate for conservative kidney management (CKM), a planned, holistic, patient-centered approach to caring for patients who forgo initiation of RRT. Little is known about the extent to which current care practices meet these expectations. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a national sample of nephrology providers recruited through US professional societies between March and July 2022 and inquired about their experiences with caring for patients who forgo RRT and their capacity to provide CKM. Results Overall, 203 nephrology providers (age 47±12 years, 53.2% White, 66.0% female), of which 49.8% were nephrologists and 50.2% advanced practice providers, completed the survey. Most (70.3%) reported that <10% of their practice comprised patients who had forgone RRT. Most indicated that they always or often provided symptom management (81.8%), multidisciplinary care (68.0%), tools to support shared decision making about treatment of advanced kidney disease (66.3%), and psychological support (52.2%) to patients who forgo RRT, while less than half reported that they always or often provided staff training on the care of these patients (47.8%) and spiritual support (41.4%). Most providers reported always or often working with primary care (72.9%), palliative medicine (68.8%), hospice (62.6%), social work (58.1%), and dietitian (50.7%) services to support these patients, while only a minority indicated that they always or often offered chaplaincy (23.2%), physical and/or occupational therapy (22.8%), psychology or psychiatry (31.5%), and geriatric medicine (28.1%). Conclusions Many nephrology providers have limited experience with caring for patients who forgo RRT. Our findings highlight opportunities to optimize comprehensive CKM care for these patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".