Skip to main content
. 2021 Jan 6;22:9. doi: 10.1186/s12882-020-02206-9

Table 2.

Participant characteristics

Patients
(N = 18)
Caregivers
(N = 4)
Professionals
(N = 25)
Age, mean (range) 79 (67–88) 60 (51–76) 48 (29–61)
Sex, male 9 (50%) 0 (0%) 4 (16%)
Children, yes 17 (94%)
Civil status
 married/living together with partner 10 (56%)
 widow/no partner 8 (45%)
Living situation
 independent 12 (67%)
 independent with care facilities (e.g. care at home, alarm bell, or assistance in housework) 6 (33%)
Education level
 Primary or secondary education 6 (34%)
 Secondary vocational education 5 (28%)
 Higher professional/ university education 7 (39%)
Treatment status
 Haemodialysis / peritoneal dialysis, n (months since start) 5 (2–21, mean 11.6)
 Transplantation, n (months since transplantation) 3 (4–32; mean 15.3)
 CKD stage 4/5 not on KRT, n 10
Future choice (if in CKD stage 4/5, not on KRT)
 Haemodialysis / peritoneal dialysis 3
 Transplantation 2
 Conservative kidney management 2
 Multiple modalities open or no decision made 3
Time since last geriatric assessment, in months, median (range) 5.5 (0.6–14.3)a
Experience in care for 65+ CKD patients, in years, median (range) 5.5 (0.5–28.3)
Clinical role
 Nephrologist 7 (28%)
 Geriatrician 4 (16%)
 Nephrologist/geriatrician 2 (8%)
 Nurse practitioner 2 (8%)
 Nurse (nephrology) 3 (12%)
 Nurse (other) 2 (8%)
 Social worker 4 (16%)
 Dietician 1 (4%)
Initiative and medical centre
 COPE study 7 (39%) 9 (36%)
  Haga hospital, The Hague 4 5
  Jeroen Bosch hospital, Den Bosch 1
  Leiden University Medical Centre 3 2
  Reinier de Graaf hospital, Delft 1
 GOLD study 6 (33%) 1 (25%) 8 (32%)
  Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam 1
  Gelderse Vallei Hospital, Ede 1
  Leiden University Medical Centre 1
  Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam 1
  St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein 2
  University Medical Centre, Utrecht 3 5
Routine care pathway 5 (28%) 3 (75%) 8 (32%)
 University Medical Centre Groningen 5 3 8

Abbreviations: CKD Chronic kidney disease; KRT Kidney replacement therapy. a Time since last geriatric assessment was substantially longer for patients from the GOLD study (median 11.8 months) versus other initiatives (median 2.2. months), because we reported the time since initial formal geriatric assessment. Additionally, patients had a follow-up after 6 months by telephone