MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403832174 · doi:10.1681/asn.2024cvfxc2s8

A Single-Centre Experience with Assisted Home Hemodialysis in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Cost-Feasibility Study

2024· article· en· W4403832174 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gihad Nesrallah, Jessica S. Wang, Mónica Silva, J. Ashley, Shabnam Hamidi, Danica Lam, David C. Mendelssohn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsHumber River Regional HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemodialysisHome hemodialysisTerm (time)MedicineLong-term careIntensive care medicineNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: For hemodialysis (HD) recipients residing in long-term care (LTC), the COVID-19 pandemic created several barriers to care. To address these challenges, we established a pilot program of fully-assisted HD provided on-site to LTC residents (LTC-HD) by registered nurses (RNs), registered practical nurses (RPNs) and personal support workers (PSWs). Methods: We performed a cost-feasibility analysis from the provider perspective using a bottom-up micro-costing approach based on real costs incurred between March 2020-March 2023. We examined a range of staffing models (in-sourced vs. out-sourced/agency and 1:1 vs higher patient:staff ratios) for providing daily (6/week, 2hrs) and conventional (3/week, 4hrs) HD. Direct costs included labor, medical supplies, and dialysis consumables using standard (Fresenius 4008K) and portable (NxStage) equipment. Indirect costs included equipment maintenance, injectables, travel, and staff replacement costs. We excluded capital, patient-borne, non-dialysis costs, and physician fees. Costs are reported in CAD/year using FY2022/23 prices. Results: During follow-up, 44 patients received LTH-HD at 15 facilities. Bundled rates were $50,076 and $83,467 for conventional and daily HD, respectively. Conventional HD with PSWs (1:1) yielded a net loss of $2,947 vs. net surplus of $3,076 with out- vs. in-sourcing, respectively. Staffing with in- and out-sourced RNs and RPNs yielded net losses with 1:1 staffing but generated surpluses of $17,426 and $20,546 when insourced RPNs and RNs treated provided 2:1 and 3:1 clustered HD. Daily HD with NxStage cost $13,681/yr more vs. standard equipment resulting in net losses in all scenarios. Daily HD yielded a surplus when staffed by in-sourced staff with further savings under clustered models. Conclusion: Fully-assisted LTC-HD is financially feasible under current bundled rates in Ontario, with greater savings in clustered settings with in-sourced staff.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicDialysis and Renal Disease Management→French-language works237,207→