A breakthrough series collaborative to increase patient participation with hemodialysis tasks: A stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial

James Fotheringham; Tania Barnes; Louese Dunn; Sonia Lee; Steven Ariss; Tracey Young; Stephen J Walters; Paul Laboi; Andy Henwood; Rachel Gair; Martin Wilkie

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253966

. 2021 Jul 20;16(7):e0253966. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253966

A breakthrough series collaborative to increase patient participation with hemodialysis tasks: A stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial

James Fotheringham ¹, Tania Barnes ¹, Louese Dunn ¹, Sonia Lee ¹, Steven Ariss ², Tracey Young ², Stephen J Walters ², Paul Laboi ³, Andy Henwood ³, Rachel Gair ⁴, Martin Wilkie ^1,^*

Editor: Shahrad Taheri⁵

¹Sheffield Kidney Institute, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, England

²School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England

³Renal Department, York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, York, England

⁴Think Kidneys, UK Renal Registry, Bristol, England

⁵Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar, QATAR

Competing Interests: JF has received speaker honoraria from Fresenius medical care and Novartis, and conducts research funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Vifor Pharma and Novartis. MEW has received speaker honoraria Fresenius and Baxter, has acted on an advisory board for Baxter and has conducted research funded by the NIHR. SJW has received book royalties from Wiley and has received funds from NIHR, the Department of Health and Medical Research Council. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

^✉

* E-mail: martin.wilkie@nhs.net

Roles

James Fotheringham: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Tania Barnes: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Louese Dunn: Data curation, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Sonia Lee: Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Steven Ariss: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Tracey Young: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft

Stephen J Walters: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Paul Laboi: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Resources, Writing – original draft

Andy Henwood: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Writing – original draft

Rachel Gair: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft

Martin Wilkie: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Shahrad Taheri: Editor

PMCID: PMC8291659 PMID: 34283851

Abstract

Background

Compared to in-centre, home hemodialysis is associated with superior outcomes. The impact on patient experience and clinical outcomes of consistently providing the choice and training to undertake hemodialysis-related treatment tasks in the in-centre setting is unknown.

Methods

A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in 12 UK renal centres recruited prevalent in-centre hemodialysis patients with sites randomised into early and late participation in a 12-month breakthrough series collaborative that included data collection, learning events, Plan-Study-Do-Act cycles, and teleconferences repeated every 6 weeks, underpinned by a faculty, co-production, materials and a nursing course. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients undertaking five or more hemodialysis-related tasks or home hemodialysis. Secondary outcomes included independent hemodialysis, quality of life, symptoms, patient activation and hospitalisation. ISRCTN Registration Number 93999549.

Results

586 hemodialysis patients were recruited. The proportion performing 5 or more tasks or home hemodialysis increased from 45.6% to 52.3% (205 to 244/449, difference 6.2%, 95% CI 1.4 to 11%), however after analysis by step the adjusted odds ratio for the intervention was 1.63 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.81, P = 0.08). 28.3% of patients doing less than 5 tasks at baseline performed 5 or more at the end of the study (69/244, 95% CI 22.2–34.3%, adjusted odds ratio 3.71, 95% CI 1.66–8.31). Independent or home hemodialysis increased from 7.5% to 11.6% (32 to 49/423, difference 4.0%, 95% CI 1.0–7.0), but the remaining secondary endpoints were unaffected.

Conclusions

Our intervention did not increase dialysis related tasks being performed by a prevalent population of centre based patients, but there was an increase in home hemodialysis as well as an increase in tasks among patients who were doing fewer than 5 at baseline. Further studies are required that examine interventions to engage people who dialyse at centres in their own care.

Introduction

When it was first developed, hemodialysis (HD) was predominantly undertaken at home, however its widespread adoption as a treatment for end stage kidney disease (ESKD) in conjunction with the increasing age and multi-morbidity of the patients receiving it, has led to in-centre HD accounting for greater than 80% of dialysis in 79% of countries in the 2016 USRDS annual report [1]. Home HD (HHD) is associated with better survival, quality of life and lower costs compared with in-centre HD, and some of this advantage may relate to the enhanced knowledge, skills and confidence that these individuals have to self-manage their condition [2]. In recognition of the benefits of home dialysis The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence recommended of a prevalence of 10–15% HHD in the UK, and a US presidential executive order prioritised home dialysis therapies with financial incentives for providers to meet targets [3].

Consistently offering in-centre HD patients the opportunity to learn about and participate in their treatment potentially enables access to some of the health benefits that are associated with HHD as well as impacting on patient activation and health literacy while aligning with the goals of person-centred care [4,5]. Self-management programmes for in-centre hemodialysis patients have been associated with improvements in empowerment, perceived self-efficacy, medication adherence, phosphate control and interdialytic weight gain between dialysis sessions which all correlate with mortality and symptom burden [6–10].

Shared Hemodialysis Care (SHC) is an educational quality improvement initiative consistently provides the choice and opportunity for in-centre HD patients to learn about and engage in their own treatment. The HD process is broken down into approximately 14 component tasks, and patients are supported to participate at complexities and rates according to individual preference (Table 1).

Table 1. Primary endpoint–five or more dialysis related tasks.

Patient preparation	Machine Preparation & Dialysis Initiation	During and after dialysis
Measuring weight Measuring blood pressure and pulse Measuring temperature Washing hands Preparing dressing (vascular access) pack	Lining dialysis machine^* Priming dialysis machine^* Programming dialysis machine Needling fistula/graft or preparing tunnelled line^* Connecting lines to fistula/graft/tunnelled line and commencing dialysis^*	Responding to machine alarms ^* Disconnecting lines and completing dialysis^* Applying pressure to needle sites or locking tunnelled line Giving your own anaemia injections (such as epoetin)

Open in a new tab

* required tasks for independent haemodialysis endpoint.

In 2016 we initiated a program to scale up and spread SHC to 12 hospital sites in England. To do this we developed a breakthrough series quality improvement collaborative (BTSC) delivered through a series of learning events. These included a quality improvement curriculum in which rapid tests of change were designed, performed and shared by contributing teams, with the goal of altering dialysis unit organisation and culture to facilitate the implementation of SHC [11]. The objective of the study presented here was to test this complex, multi-centre intervention. To do so we designed a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial (SWCRT) of SHC delivered through a BTSC (SHAREHD) conducted across twelve renal centres with the primary endpoint being to increase the proportion of patients doing five or more tasks or undertaking HD at home [12,13].

Materials and methods

Study design

The trial design was an 18 month closed cohort stepped wedge cluster randomised trial (SWCRT) conducted in 12 renal centres (units of cluster randomisation) in England, according to a published protocol consistent with the extension to cluster randomized trials of the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting [13]. It ran from October 2016 to March 2018: following a control period of 6 months, the first group of 6 centres received the intervention and 6 months later the 6 remaining centres received it (Figs 1 and 2). The study adhered to the declaration of Helsinki, ethical approval was obtained from West London & GTAC Research Ethics Committee (IRAS project ID 212395). We focused on undertaking many of the other activities involved in setting up the breakthrough series collaborative, engaging with the teams from the centres and planning the various workstreams, and as a result the trial registration (ISRCTN Number 93999549) was delayed until after the first patient had been consented. The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this intervention by this investigatory group are registered. The protocol was published before the study was completed and before any results were analysed [12].

Participants

The 12 renal centres had responsibility for the local organisation and delivery of HD treatment and were invited to participate by the chief investigator (MEW) in October 2015. Between October 2016 and February 2017 prevalent HD patients treated at these centres were approached by research nurses, and written, informed consent was obtained to participate in a questionnaire-based study. The specific details of the SWCRT and breakthrough series collaborative were not shared with the patients.

Inclusion criteria: Cluster level: English renal centres with a hospital or satellite-based hemodialysis programme. Patient level: patients to be established on centre-based hemodialysis and have capacity to give written informed consent. Exclusion criteria were those who are too unwell to engage in the study, as judged by the clinical team, or unable to understand written and verbal communication in English.

Centres participating in the trial were: Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Central Manchester Healthcare Trust, City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, East & North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Guy’s & St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, Heart of England Foundation Trust, Leeds teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, North Bristol NHS Trust, University Hospital of North Midlands NHS Trust, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust

Randomisation and masking

In July 2016 the study statistician (SJW) used computer generated numbers to produce an allocation sequence for the 12 dialysis centre clusters (6 early and 6 late). The study manager (SL) then informed participating centres of their individual sequence after they had agreed to participate in the trial. There was no patient-level stratification and neither clusters or patients were blinded to the sequence allocation.

Procedures

The SHAREHD Intervention was delivered through a BTSC [14] involving implementation teams from participating centres made up of approximately five individuals from each site including nursing staff, clinicians, patient partners and additional personnel (e.g. psychologist, service managers as determined by individual sites). Components of the collaborative are presented in Fig 3 with data in S1 Table. Teams met every six weeks at learning events designed to enable adoption of SHC through sharing patient and clinician experiences, teaching and reviewing improvement methodologies and designing PDSA cycles. Progress and outcome of these PDSA cycles was informed by real-time task data from participating patients and reviewed at subsequent action period calls. The programme was led by a clinician (MEW), programme manager (SL), patient representative (AH), rapid data analytics (JF) and developmental evaluation of both the programme and the implementation at sites (SA). The program was supported by bespoke materials (patient information leaflets, training manuals and an adoption roadmap available via the SHC website) [15], social media (e.g. Facebook, WhatsApp and @sharemydialysis on Twitter) and newsletters. An established SHC course for health care staff was available and utilised by teams as required [16].

The BTSC was aligned with the SWCRT design. Two sequences of learning events each containing teams from six participating sites were undertaken. The first sequence attended the initial 4 events over six months. Sequence 2 then had a single event to learn key concepts followed by 4 further events in combination with the sequence 1 sites (Figure in S1 Fig) over 6 months. Sites attended events and were instructed to apply their learning during transition or intervention periods only.

Data from patients participating in the research study including endpoints were collected using research nurse and self-completed paper instruments at three-monthly intervals for HD tasks and six-monthly intervals for secondary endpoints with the exception of hospitalisation which was obtained through data linkage to hospital episode statistics by the National Health Service (NHS) Digital Data Access Request Service [17].

Outcomes

The primary binary outcome was a change in the proportion of participating hemodialysis patients completing 5 or more out of 14 tasks (independently or supervised) or transferring to HHD, sampled at three monthly intervals throughout the study. We selected 5 tasks as the primary outcome measure based on QI work conducted in Yorkshire and the Humber (UK) which suggested that this number indicated patient engagement in the dialysis process through conducting tasks beyond handwashing and performing observations (Table 1) [18]. The secondary binary outcome was an absolute increase in HHD and in-centre independent dialysis. These endpoints were collected towards the end of each three-month period in order to allow patients time to have been exposed to the intervention (Fig 2). Where observations were obtained during the transition period between control and intervention these were assigned to the control.

The secondary endpoint of HHD or independent (completely self-caring) in-centre hemodialysis was defined as the move to HHD or the tasks asterixed in Table 1. The secondary endpoints of change in patient activation; [4,19] quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) [20] and POS-S Renal symptom score components (anxiety, depression and pain) [21] were measured six-monthly at pre-defined timepoints. Hospitalisation was used to assess safety and adverse events, and was assessed as change in all-cause and cause specific–dialysis access, fluid overload and cardiovascular events based on ICD10 codes (data in S2 Table).

Statistical analysis

Using a recommended ICC value of 0.05 [22], A SWCRT design of 3 steps (including baseline) and 12 clusters of 25 patients, with 6 clusters randomised at each step, would have a 90% power to detect an increase in event rate from 15% to 30% [23] as statistically significant at the 5% two-sided level. Assuming the baseline independent in-centre HD rate was around 2% in participating clusters with the same assumptions as the primary endpoint the SWCRT design has 80% power to detect an increase in the event rate from 2% to 7.2% as statistically significant at the 5% two-sided level. In recognition of the background mortality and renal transplantation rate and to mitigate the risk of incomplete data collection, the target recruitment per participating site was doubled to 50.

Absolute changes in primary and secondary endpoints were assessed comparing the first available observation for all patients during the baseline period with the last available observation for all patients during the second step. The categorical primary endpoints of five tasks or home HD and secondary endpoints of anxiety, depression and pain (absent or mild compared to moderate, severe or overwhelming due to their distribution) and hospitalisation per three-month period were analysed using mixed effects logistic regression performed on all observations and including the stepped wedge randomly assigned exposure to the control or intervention at the time of data collection (intention to treat). Continuous endpoints including numbers of tasks, patient activation measure score and EQ5D utility were analysed using mixed effects linear regression adopting the same approach as above. Primary and secondary outcomes were evaluated accounting for clustering within participating renal centres using a random intercept (a centre-specific baseline proportion or an endpoint), and within patient using a random intercept (a patient-specific baseline proportion of an endpoint). All multivariable models were adjusted for the baseline variables of age (<35, 35–49, 50–64, 65–79, 80+), gender, time on dialysis (years), marital status, health literacy (adequate defined as “somewhat” or better to the question “How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?” [24]), EQ5D utility value and comorbid score derived from linked administrative data [25]. Baseline EQ5D utility score was included in all models except when it was analysed as secondary outcome measure. Endpoints are reported with and without adjustment for time (measured in months from beginning of baseline period) to account for any underlying secular trends in endpoints [13]. A patient was censored from primary and secondary endpoint analyses if they were transplanted, switched to peritoneal dialysis, withdrew consent, moved centre, discontinued dialysis or died. Incident dialysis patients were defined as receiving dialysis for less than six months and prevalent longer than six months at study inception.

Prespecified sensitivity analyses exploring the effect of the intervention on subgroups of individuals were defined in our analysis plan and reviewed by our evaluation advisory board. All analyses were performed on STATA version 14.2 (StataCorp. 2015. College Station, TX).

Results

The 12 participating renal centres were identified and agreed to participate between June and September 2015. Between October 2016 and January 2017 1551 patients were screened across the 12 centres and 586 patients consented to participate (303 in the 6 centres that began the intervention January 2017 and 283 patients in the 6 centres that began the intervention in July 2017, Figs 1 and 2). There were no deviations from the scheduled steps and no clusters were lost during the trial. The fidelity of the intervention was evaluated based on the conduct and participation in learning events and action period calls, PDSA cycles and task data collection (data in S1 Text).

Patient characteristics and numbers analysed

The baseline characteristics of the patients recruited into the trial are detailed in Table 2, stratified by the randomisation and their baseline primary endpoint status. Patient characteristics by cluster are available in data in S4 Table. The flow of patients and renal centres through the two stepped sequences is illustrated in Fig 1, showing that by the end of the 18 month study 173 patients (29.5%) of patients had discontinued the study, however missing data for HD tasks (n = 8) and adjustment variables (n = 179) resulted in the exclusion of 187 patients from the multi-variable logistic regression model assessing the primary endpoint of proportion undertaking 5 or more HD tasks or home hemodialysis.

Table 2. Baseline patient characteristics.

	Randomisation		Baseline Ind/Sup Tasks		Observed values
	Sequence 1	Sequence 2	<5	> = 5
n	303	283	321	253
Age (years)	62.8 (15.6)	62.9 (15.6)	65.8 (15.6)	59.2 (14.8)	547
Time since first dialysis (years)	5.1 (5.4)	5.8 (8)	4.3 (4.9)	6.7 (8.1)	498
Gender (Male)	179 (60.9%)	148 (62.2%)	174 (60.2%)	152 (62.8%)	532
Ethnicity (Caucasian)	250 (85.6%)	180 (76.9%)	242 (84.6%)	187 (78.2%)	526
Comorbidities					520
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Dis.	25 (8.9%)	27 (10.8%)	32 (10.9%)	19 (8.4%)
Heart Failure	51 (18.2%)	51 (20.3%)	65 (22.1%)	36 (15.9%)
Cerebrovascular Disease	20 (7.1%)	25 (10.0%)	33 (11.2%)	12 (5.3%)
Previous Myocardial Infarction	59 (21%)	43 (17.1%)	65 (22.1%)	36 (15.9%)
Lymphoma	3 (1%)	5 (2.0%)	4 (1.4%)	3 (1.3%)
Neurological Disease	16 (5.7%)	9 (3.6%)	17 (5.8%)	8 (3.5%)
Vascular Procedure	8 (2.9%)	9 (3.6%)	13 (4.4%)	4 (1.8%)
Valvular Heart Disease	44 (15.7%)	38 (15.1%)	51 (17.4%)	29 (12.8%)
Cancer	24 (8.5%)	20 (8.0%)	21 (7.1%)	21 (9.3%)
Connective Tissue Disease	12 (4.3%)	15 (6.0%)	15 (5.1%)	12 (5.3%)
Diabetes	112 (39.9%)	104 (41.4%)	129 (43.9%)	84 (37.2%)
Comorbid Score	1.51 (1.38)	1.55 (1.42)	1.71 (1.45)	1.33 (1.31)	520
EQ5D Utility	0.68 (0.27)	0.71 (0.26)	0.67 (0.28)	0.74 (0.23)	485
PAM score	56.2 (18.6)	58.3 (19)	50.8 (15.6)	64.3 (19.6)	456
PAM level					456
1—Passive & Overwhelmed	80 (31.5%)	50 (24.8%)	93 (38.3%)	37 (17.4%)
2—Lack Knowledge & Confidence	57 (22.4%)	38 (18.8%)	66 (27.2%)	29 (13.6%)
3—Taking Action	75 (29.5%)	70 (34.7%)	66 (27.2%)	79 (37.1%)
4—Adopted behaviours	42 (16.5%)	44 (21.8%)	18 (7.4%)	64 (31.9%)
Anxiety (moderate or worse)	74 (28.1%)	55 (24.4%)	64 (24.8%)	65 (28.3%)	488
Depression (moderate or worse)	73 (27.9%)	41 (18.2%)	61 (23.7%)	53 (23.0%)	488
Pain (moderate or worse)	104 (39.5%)	84 (37.8%)	105 (40.9%)	83 (36.4%)	487
Poor Mobility (moderately impaired or worse)	152 (57.4%)	99 (44.0%)	149 (57.1%)	102 (44.5%)	490
Limited Health Literacy	73 (28.0%)	54 (24.4%)	85 (31.0%)	42 (17.7%)	482
Education (no formal qualification)	108 (37.8%)	71 (30.0%)	107 (38.1%)	71 (29.6%)	522
Number of tasks (mean)
Independent or Supervised	5 (4.1)	5.1 (3.9)	2.3 (1.3)	8.6 (3.4)	574
Independent	4.3 (3.8)	3.9 (3.3)	2 (1.2)	6.9 (3.6)	574
Interest in Home HD					546
Yes	40 (13.9%)	41 (15.9%)	33 (10.7%)	48 (20.3%)
No	202 (70.1%)	179 (69.4%)	234 (75.7%)	147 (62.0%)
Maybe	46 (16.0%)	38 (14.7%)	42 (13.6%)	42 (17.7%)
Self-needling interest (probably do it or better)	84 (35.9%)	61 (32.6%)	50 (23.0%)	95 (46.6%)	421

Open in a new tab

Full list of POS-S symptoms available in data in S3 Table.

Outcomes and estimation

Of the 449 patients who had their tasks measured during both baseline and intervention periods, the number undertaking five or more tasks independently or supervised increased from 205 to 244 following the intervention (45.6% vs 52.3%, absolute change 6.2%, P = 0.010, 95% CI: 1.4 to 11.0%).

The trend in patients performing five or more tasks or undertaking home hemodialysis is shown in Fig 4A, stratified by randomised sequence. The time adjusted odds ratio for the intervention for undertaking five or more tasks independently or supervised or home hemodialysis was 1.62 (95% CI 1.02–2.60, P = 0.043) in analyses not including baseline variables and 1.63 (95% CI 0.94–2.81, P = 0.080) in the analysis adjusted for baseline covariates (Table 3). Changes in individual tasks are shown in Fig 5, showing improvements in the proportion doing both supervised and unsupervised tasks, and are reported stratified by number of baseline tasks in supplementary figures (figure in S2 Fig, figure in S3 Fig).

Table 3. Primary endpoint of five or more tasks or home hemodialysis, and secondary endpoints: Effect sizes.

Endpoint Analysis	Time (per month)	Effect Size of Intervention (95% CI)	P	N	ICC centre	ICC patient
PRIMARY ENDPOINT
Primary—5+ Tasks or HHD
Absolute Proportion doing tasks		45.6% (205/449) vs 52.3% (244/449) Difference 6.2% (1.4–11.0)	0.01
Crude OR	1.00 (0.96–1.05)	1.62 (1.02–2.60)	0.043	578	0.237	0.818
Multivarable adjusted OR	1.01 (0.95–1.05)	1.63 (0.94–2.81)	0.08	399	0.220	0.762
Crude OR without time	-	1.68 (1.28–2.21)	<0.001	578	0.237	0.818
Multivarable adjusted OR without time	-	1.59 (1.16–2.19)	0.004	399	0.220	0.762
SECONDARY ENDPOINTS
Independent ICHD or HHD		7.5% (32/423) vs 11.6% (49/423) Difference 4.0 (1.0–7.0)	0.008
Number of tasks (Independent or Supervised)	0.01 (-0.05–0.08)	0.31 (-0.26–0.89)	0.283	399	0.179
Number of tasks (Independent)	0.05 (-0.01–0.10)	0.21 (-0.31–0.72)	0.43	399	0.170
Patient Activation Score (0–100)	-0.12 (-0.53–0.28)	1.26 (-2.88–5.41)	0.551	393	0.063
EQ5D Utility Value (0: Dead, 1: Perfect Health)	0.0 (-0.01–0.00)	0.01 (-0.06–0.07)	0.806	409	0.049
Depression (Moderate or worse, OR)	1.01 (0.93–1.10)	1.05 (0.46–2.40)	0.916	390	0.006	0.513
Anxiety (Moderate or worse, OR)	1.00 (0.91–1.08)	0.90 (0.43–1.90)	0.787	390	0.006	0.464
Pain (Moderate or worse, OR)	0.96 (0.90–1.03)	1.89 (0.99–3.61)	0.054	390	0.000	0.359
All Cause Hospitalisation OR	1.00 (0.97–1.04)	1.00 (0.68–1.47)	1.000	399	0.007	0.170
Infection Hospitalisation OR	1.01 (0.95–1.08)	1.15 (0.62–2.11)	0.662	399	0.000	0.063
Fluid Overload Hospitalisation OR	1.10 (0.98–1.23)	0.24 (0.07–0.80)	0.019	399	0.065	0.065
Vascular Access Hospitalisation OR	1.08 (1.00–1.17)	0.78 (0.35–1.75)	0.551	399	0.000	0.032
Emergency Room Attendance OR	1.02 (0.98–1.05)	1.00 (0.70–1.42)	0.985	399	0.000	0.176

Open in a new tab

OR: Odds Ratio. Mixed effects logistic or linear regression model with a random effects (random intercept for cluster and participant where ICC patient quoted) and fixed effects for intervention and time and baseline covariates. Adjusted for the baseline variables of age (categories), gender, time on dialysis (years), marital status, health literacy (adequate or inadequate), EQ5D utility value and comorbid score (derived from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive cardiac failure, cerebrovascular accident, acute myocardial infarction, neurological disease, vascular intervention, valvular heart disease, cancer, connective tissue disease and diabetes).

Fig 5 — Categories: Independent (blue), Supervised (green), and Not Doing (red). Figure stratified by baseline participation: Figure in S2 Fig and figure in S3 Fig.

The proportion of patients performing their dialysis independently in centre was 5.2% (21/402) at the end of the baseline period and 6.9% (28/402) at the end of the study (absolute difference 1.7%, 95%CI -1.0 to 4.5%) and 21 patients (5.0% of 402 completing the study) moved from in-centre to home HD. The overall improvement of this combined endpoint was from 7.6% to 11.6% (difference 4.0%, 95% CI 1.0% to 7.0%), however the relatively small number of events precluded the use of a multi-level multivariable model on this endpoint.

There was no statistically significant impact of the stepped intervention on the patient activation measure® (adjusted mean difference 1.26, 95% CI -2.88 to 5.41, P = 0.551), EQ5D quality of life (adjusted mean difference 0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.07, P = 0.806), number of HD tasks, or symptoms of depression, anxiety or pain (Table 3, figure in S4 Fig). There was no significant difference in hospitalisation according to exposure to the intervention (Table 3, data in S6 Table, figure in S5 Fig).

Subgroup and sensitivity analyses

Stratifying by the primary endpoint of five or more tasks at baseline showed differing effects of the intervention. 80.0% (123/205, 95% CI 74.7–85.7%, P<0.001) of patients who began the study doing five or more tasks were still doing five or more at the end of the study, whereas 28.3% (69/244, 95% CI 22.2–34.3, P<0.001) who began the study doing less than five tasks were doing more than five tasks at the end of the study (Fig 4B). The time and multi-variable adjusted odds ratio effect of the intervention in patients doing less than 5 tasks at baseline was 3.71 (95% CI 1.66–8.31, P = 0.024, data in S5 Table). Having removed time from the endpoint models the odds ratio for patients completing five or more tasks or performing home hemodialysis was 1.59 (95% CI 1.16–2.19, P = 0.004, Table 3).

Discussion

This 12-site stepped wedge cluster randomised trial (SWCRT) evaluating a breakthrough series collaborative (BTSC) supporting patients to learn treatment related tasks significantly improved the absolute proportion of patients undertaking the combined end-point of 5 of more HD tasks or home HD, however the adjusted odds ratio for the intervention was not significant. Significant increases in the combined end-point of dialyzing independent in-centre and home HD were observed, as was the increase in participation in HD tasks in patients who were performing fewer than 5 dialysis tasks at baseline. However, the secondary endpoints of patient activation, EQ5D quality of life and hospitalisation were unaltered.

Demonstrating the impact of quality interventions in kidney disease is challenging, however there is evidence for the use of quality improvement collaboratives in renal replacement therapy [26], particularly around the reduction of central venous catheter infection rates and peritoneal infection rates but this approach has not been used to deliver self-management support in dialysis [27], Despite associations between improved health-related quality of life and HHD and the SHC intervention being effective in promoting independent and home HD, gains in health-related quality of life not observed. Our study did not identify increased infection- and dialysis-access-related hospitalisations associated with performing more tasks, unlike observational data from the US showing increases in these events in home- compared to in-centre patients [28]. The observed reduction in fluid overload admissions may be a consequence of patients performing their own weight and programming their HD machines leading to improved knowledge around fluid management [29].

The strengths of this study include that it was multi-centre and of relatively large size and that groups were well randomised at baseline. In order to maintain external generalizability inclusion criteria were broad and consented patients were representative of the prevalent HD population including the multi-morbidity associated with this group. The BTSC and associated co-production with service users resulted in adaption of the intervention at participating sites to take account of contextual issues which can impact on intervention efficacy [30]. The SWCRT design enabled cost-effective evaluation of the impact of this complex intervention on the longitudinal changes in endpoints using a closed design [26]. However, a weakness of the that design was that all patients received the intervention during the final phase when they were potentially at their frailest due to the progressive impact of their medical condition. This increasing frailty may have contributed to a reduced dialysis task participation during the course of the study among those who were undertaking more than 5 tasks at the outset, and baseline frailty could have prevent a subgroup of individuals with low task participation at baseline from increasing their task participation. The combination of these factors and the inclusion of time in the outcome models may have resulted in an under estimation of the effect of the intervention, and for this reason and in line with guidance we report our models both with and without time included [13,31]. Other weaknesses included missing data reducing the sample size for multivariable models, a higher than expect baseline rate of dialysis-related tasks (45.6 observed vs 15% assumed) and centre interclass correlation (observed 0.179 vs 0.05 assumed), the unblinded assessment of patient tasks and that the act of collecting task data led to greater engagement during control periods.

Healthcare providers intending to increase home dialysis use may consider the SHC intervention since this study demonstrated impact on independent and home HD use. The intervention had the greatest impact on individuals who were undertaking fewer tasks at baseline and possibly those with the lowest levels of patient activation. However, as individuals performing fewer tasks at baseline appear to be more comorbid if they increased their number of tasks are a result of the intervention, they could subsequently reduce their number of tasks due to this frailty. Future interventions in this area should explore approaches to rehabilitate individuals whose self-efficacy has acutely or chronically declined, and intervention/trial designs that focus on incident patients and utilise Transitional Care Units to support individuals who are starting dialysis to learn tasks [32].

In conclusion, despite the difficulties of studying a prevalent, highly co-morbid dialysis population, the delivery of a break-through series collaborative designed to support greater patient participation in centre-based HD was safe and effective at improving the number of individuals performing dialysis independently or at home, and increased HD tasks in-centre among patients who were performing less than five. Recognition of the impact of this intervention while acknowledging the tendency for patients to become frailer over time are important considerations when responding to HD policy recommendations designed to increase self-management.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(46.4KB, pdf)}

S1 Fig. Sequence of learning events and action period calls.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(493.4KB, pdf)}

S2 Fig. Patient participation in individual dialysis tasks at baseline and end of the stepped wedge (<5 tasks at baseline).

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(389.6KB, pdf)}

S3 Fig. Patient participation in individual dialysis tasks at baseline and end of the stepped wedge (5+ tasks at baseline).

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(389.6KB, pdf)}

S4 Fig. Secular trends in secondary endpoints, stratified by randomisation sequence.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(428.7KB, pdf)}

S5 Fig. Secular trends in hospitalisation.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(560.4KB, pdf)}

S1 Table. Components of the breakthrough series collaborative underpinning the delivery of the intervention.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(373.9KB, pdf)}

S2 Table. ICD10 codes for the reasons for hospitalisation.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(363KB, pdf)}

S3 Table. Individual symptoms of the POS-S renal score.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(372.6KB, pdf)}

S4 Table. Cluster characteristics.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(656.3KB, pdf)}

S5 Table. Subgroup analysis of primary endpoint.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(378.5KB, pdf)}

S6 Table. Hospitalisation rates, rate ratios and odds ratios.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(537.9KB, pdf)}

S1 Text. Description and results of fidelity assessment.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(539.6KB, pdf)}

S1 File

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(515.8KB, pdf)}

Acknowledgments

The study team wish to acknowledge and thank the following contributing team members: Site principle investigators: Veena Reddy: Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; Sandip Mitra: Central Manchester Healthcare Trust; Saeed Ahmed: City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust; Paul Warwicker: East & North Hertfordshire NHS Trust; Nicola Kumar: Guy’s & St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust; Joyti Baharani: Heart of England Foundation Trust; Elizabeth Garthwaite: Leeds teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Babu Ramakrishna: The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Albert Power: North Bristol NHS Trust; Mark Lambie: University Hospital of North Midlands NHS Trust; Alastair Ferraro: Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust; Implementation and research team members: Joanna Blackburn (qualitative research): Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; Paul Harriman (quality improvement), Megan Bennett and Richard Simmonds (administrative support); Catherine Stannard & George Swinnerton (Think Kidneys) for processing the Your Health Survey; Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Sponsor); Strategic advice from Michael Nation: Kidney Research UK. Prof Sue Mawson for chairing the evaluation advisory board. NIHR CRN research nurses at participating sites for consenting patients and supporting questionnaire completion.

Data Availability

A minimal dataset required to reach the conclusions drawn from this manuscript required the linkage of identifiable patient information collected during the trial to Hospital Episode Statistics data, which at the time of writing is provided by the NHS Digital Data Access Request Service (NHS DARS, https://digital.nhs.uk/services/data-access-request-service-dars), and then appropriate processing. An application to NHS DARS can be submitted detailing lawful processing of the combined dataset and the period which HES data is required for. NHS DARS would verify appropriate permissions were in place as a result of this process. A data sharing agreement between the relevant parties would allow data to be transferred from the University of Sheffield to NHS DARS and on to those wishing to perform the enclosed analyses. Please contact ctru@sheffield.ac.uk for further information about the unlinked dataset which has the personal information required for linkage.

Funding Statement

The Health Foundation Scaling Up Award.

References

1.Saran R, Robinson B, Abbott KC, Agodoa LY, Albertus P, Ayanian J, et al. US Renal Data System 2016 Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of Kidney Disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2017;69(3 Suppl 1):A7–A8. Epub 2017/02/27. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.12.004 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6605045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Gair R, Steenkamp M. Valuing Individuals: Transforming Participation in Chronic Kidney Disease2016. Available from: https://www.thinkkidneys.nhs.uk/ckd/resources/reports/.
3.Knight R. A Patient’s Perspective on Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2019;14(12):1795–7. doi: 10.2215/CJN.10560919 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Nair D, Cavanaugh KL. Measuring Patient Activation as Part of Kidney Disease Policy: Are We There Yet? Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2020:ASN.2019121331. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2019121331 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Morton RL, Sellars M. From Patient-Centered to Person-Centered Care for Kidney Diseases. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2019;14(4):623–5. doi: 10.2215/CJN.10380818 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Griva K, Nandakumar M, Ng JH, Lam KFY, McBain H, Newman SP. Hemodialysis Self-management Intervention Randomized Trial (HED-SMART): A Practical Low-Intensity Intervention to Improve Adherence and Clinical Markers in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2018;71(3):371–81. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2017.09.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Moattari M, Ebrahimi M, Sharifi N, Rouzbeh J. The effect of empowerment on the self-efficacy, quality of life and clinical and laboratory indicators of patients treated with hemodialysis: a randomized controlled trial. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2012;10(1):115. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Huang B, Li Z, Wang Y, Xia J, Shi T, Jiang J, et al. Effectiveness of self-management support in maintenance haemodialysis patients with hypertension: A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. Nephrology (Carlton). 2018;23(8):755–63. Epub 2017/07/01. doi: 10.1111/nep.13098 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Howren MB, Kellerman QD, Hillis SL, Cvengros J, Lawton W, Christensen AJ. Effect of a Behavioral Self-Regulation Intervention on Patient Adherence to Fluid-Intake Restrictions in Hemodialysis: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Behav Med. 2016;50(2):167–76. Epub 2015/12/04. doi: 10.1007/s12160-015-9741-0 [pii]. . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Wileman V, Farrington K, Chilcot J, Norton S, Wellsted DM, Almond MK, et al. Evidence that self-affirmation improves phosphate control in hemodialysis patients: a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. Ann Behav Med. 2014;48(2):275–81. Epub 2014/02/18. doi: 10.1007/s12160-014-9597-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Glidewell L, Boocock S, Pine K, Campbell R, Hackett J, Gill S, et al. Using behavioural theories to optimise shared haemodialysis care: a qualitative intervention development study of patient and professional experience. Implementation science: IS. 2013;8:118. Epub 2013/10/09. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-118 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3851734. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Fotheringham J, Barnes T, Dunn L, Lee S, Ariss S, Young T, et al. Rationale and design for SHAREHD: a quality improvement collaborative to scale up Shared Haemodialysis Care for patients on centre based haemodialysis. BMC Nephrol. 2017;18(1):335. Epub 2017/11/28. doi: 10.1186/s12882-017-0748-6 [pii]. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5702083. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Hemming K, Taljaard M, McKenzie JE, Hooper R, Copas A, Thompson JA, et al. Reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomised trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement with explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2018;363:k1614. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1614 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Improvement I. The breakthrough series: IHI’s collaborative model for achieving breakthrough improvement. IHI Innovation Series white paper Boston: Institute for Healthcare Improvement. 2003.
15.The Shared Haemodialysis Care programme. Sharing Haemodialysis Care 2019 [1/08/2019]. Available from: https://www.shareddialysis-care.org.uk/.
16.Barnes T, Hancock K, Dainton M. Training nurses to support greater patient engagement in haemodialysis. Journal of Renal Care. 2013;39(S2):10–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-6686.2013.12028.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Data Access Request Service (DARS) [cited 2021 05/06/2021]. Available from: https://digital.nhs.uk/services/data-access-request-service-dars.
18.The Health Foundation. Enabling self-management and shared haemodialysis care in hospital based dialysis. 2015.
19.Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Mahoney ER, Tusler M. Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res. 2004;39(4 Pt 1):1005–26. Epub 2004/07/03. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1361049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36. Epub 2011/04/12. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3220807. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Murphy EL, Murtagh FE, Carey I, Sheerin NS. Understanding symptoms in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease managed without dialysis: use of a short patient-completed assessment tool. Nephron Clin Pract. 2009;111(1):c74–80. Epub 2008/12/18. doi: 10.1159/000183177 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Campbell MJ, Walters SJ. How to design, analyse and report cluster randomised trials in medicine and health related research: John Wiley & Sons; 2014. [Google Scholar]
23.Cabada J, Rhodes C, Mckinnell JC, Fluck R, editors. The implementation of a comprehensive shared care initiative in a larger haemodialysis unit. Poster British Renal Society. Leeds July 2015. British Renal Society; 2015; Leeds. [Google Scholar]
24.Chew LD, Griffin JM, Partin MR, Noorbaloochi S, Grill JP, Snyder A, et al. Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(5):561–6. Epub 2008/03/13. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0520-5 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2324160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Fotheringham J, Jacques RM, Fogarty D, Tomson CRV, El Nahas M, Campbell MJ. Variation in centre-specific survival in patients starting renal replacement therapy in England is explained by enhanced comorbidity information from hospitalization data. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2013;29(2):422–30. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gft363 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Wells S, Tamir O, Gray J, Naidoo D, Bekhit M, Goldmann D. Are quality improvement collaboratives effective? A systematic review. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2018;27(3):226–40. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006926 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Sethna CB, Bryant K, Munshi R, Warady BA, Richardson T, Lawlor J, et al. Risk Factors for and Outcomes of Catheter-Associated Peritonitis in Children: The SCOPE Collaborative. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2016:CJN.02540316. doi: 10.2215/CJN.02540316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Suri RS, Li L, Nesrallah GE. The risk of hospitalization and modality failure with home dialysis. Kidney Int. 2015;88(2):360–8. Epub 2015/03/19. doi: 10.1038/ki.2015.68 ki201568 [pii]. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4526768. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Flythe JE, Mangione TW, Brunelli SM, Curhan GC. Patient-stated preferences regarding volume-related risk mitigation strategies for hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;9(8):1418–25. Epub 2014/06/07. doi: 10.2215/CJN.03280314 CJN.03280314 [pii]. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4123390. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Parry GJ, Carson-Stevens A, Luff DF, McPherson ME, Goldmann DA. Recommendations for Evaluation of Health Care Improvement Initiatives. Academic Pediatrics. 2013;13(6, Supplement):S23–S30. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2013.04.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Hemming K, Taljaard M, Forbes A. Analysis of cluster randomised stepped wedge trials with repeated cross-sectional samples. Trials. 2017;18(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1833-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Bowman BT. Transitional Care Units: Greater Than the Sum of Their Parts. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2019;14(5):765–7. doi: 10.2215/CJN.12301018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253966.r001

Decision Letter 0

Shahrad Taheri

15 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-06704

A breakthrough series collaborative to increase patient participation with hemodialysis tasks: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fotheringham,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address the comments from the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 30 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shahrad Taheri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Thank you for submitting your clinical trial to PLOS ONE and for providing the name of the registry and the registration number. The information in the registry entry suggests that your trial was registered after patient recruitment began. PLOS ONE strongly encourages authors to register all trials before recruiting the first participant in a study.

As per the journal’s editorial policy, please include in the Methods section of your paper:

1) your reasons for your delay in registering this study (after enrolment of participants started);

2) confirmation that all related trials are registered by stating: “The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this drug/intervention are registered”.

Thank you for stating in the text of your manuscript "written, informed consent was obtained to participate in a questionnaire-based study". Please also add this information to your ethics statement in the online submission form.

Please provide the full names of the 12 renal centres.

Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

JF has received speaker honoraria from Fresenius medical care, and conducts research funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Vifor Pharma and Novartis.

MEW has received speaker honoraria Fresenius and Baxter, has acted on an advisory board for Baxter and has conducted research funded by the NIHR.

SJW has received book royalties from Wiley and has received funds from NIHR, the Department of Health and Medical Research Council.

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Please include captions for *all* your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

9. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a model of a stepped wedge trial with appropriate sample size considerations, and careful analysis adjusted for step. Given that it was a negative (primary outcome) study, it is important to point out in the conclusions whether the assumed sample size parameters were realized in the trial.

Reviewer #2: This is a useful piece of work because it looks at an area of dialysis practice that is very topical at present and looks at outcomes that might plausibly be generated by an increase in the proportion of patients involved in their own treatment. It was disappointing that the intervention did not lead to many of the possible positive outcomes, but this is important data to have. It would be interesting to understand if the authors felt that the main reason behind this was the relatively high level of patients already performing some self-care at baseline, or if they anticipated that a longer time period or more intervention might have made a difference, for example.

It would be useful to understand more clearly the nature of the interventions made to increase self-care at the participating centres, which would also indicate what person-time resource was required to deliver the interventions. This would have relevance to the dialysis community, especially given the likely inclusion of shared care HD / Home HD as part of the GIRFT requirements.

Reviewer #3: This was a very important study examining if an educational quality improvement intervention increased the proportion of in-centre hemodialysis patients completing 5 or more out of 14 tasks (independently or supervised) or transferring to home haemodialysis, using stepped wedge cluster randomised trial design. Although the primary endpoint was not achieved, significantly more patients transferred to HHD and there was an increase in the number of patients able to perform complete =/>5 tasks in the subgroup that had performed <5 tasks at baseline.

I have a couple of comments that the authors might want to address.

The authors suggest that increasing frailty among HD patients with time is the likely reason for not achieving primary endpoint. If that is so, how did those who could perform <5 tasks at baseline, presumably frailer or more cognitively impaired at baseline, show significant improvement?

I would like to see more detailed discussion on the putative reasons for not achieving primary outcome and if a different study design would have shown positive results.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 20;16(7):e0253966. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253966.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

7 Jun 2021

A fully formatted response is available at the end of our cover letter

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for submitting your clinical trial to PLOS ONE and for providing the name of the registry and the registration number. The information in the registry entry suggests that your trial was registered after patient recruitment began. PLOS ONE strongly encourages authors to register all trials before recruiting the first participant in a study.

As per the journal’s editorial policy, please include in the Methods section of your paper:

1) your reasons for your delay in registering this study (after enrolment of participants started);

We have added the statement:

We focused on undertaking many of the other activities involved in setting up the breakthrough series collaborative, engaging with the teams from the centres and planning the various workstreams, and as a result the trial registration (ISRCTN Number 93999549) was delayed until after the first patient had been consented.

2) confirmation that all related trials are registered by stating: “The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this drug/intervention are registered”.

We are not undertaking further trials in this area, and could not speak for other groups. Therefore we have stated:

The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this intervention by this investigatory group are registered.

3. Thank you for stating in the text of your manuscript "written, informed consent was obtained to participate in a questionnaire-based study". Please also add this information to your ethics statement in the online submission form.

We have added this wording to the Ethics statement in the submission.

4. Please provide the full names of the 12 renal centres.

The 12 centres were listed in the acknowledgements of our original submission. We assume that the journal wants this listed in the main body in addition. We have added this in the cluster inclusion criteria, but wonder if the journal might see this as unnecessary duplication?

Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Central Manchester Healthcare Trust, City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, East & North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Guy’s & St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, Heart of England Foundation Trust, Leeds teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, North Bristol NHS Trust, University Hospital of North Midlands NHS Trust, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

JF has received speaker honoraria from Fresenius medical care, and conducts research funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Vifor Pharma and Novartis.

MEW has received speaker honoraria Fresenius and Baxter, has acted on an advisory board for Baxter and has conducted research funded by the NIHR.

SJW has received book royalties from Wiley and has received funds from NIHR, the Department of Health and Medical Research Council.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

7. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Apologies, in the paragraph “Patient characteristics and numbers analysed” the reference to table 3 should have read table 2.

8. Please include captions for *all* your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Our original submission has captions for all supporting information files. We have attempted to align with the above guidance – we have interpreted it as requiring everything to start with “S” and be sequentially numbered.

We have added one reference in response to a reviewers comments and a reference to a data source. One typographical error existed. We have not identified any other issues.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Thank you. We performed our sample size estimation based on existing literature and best practices in this area. The baseline number of tasks were assumed to be 15%, with 90% power to detect an increase to 30%, however the baseline level in the trial was 45.6% in those who had their tasks measured in both control and intervention period (first paragraph of outcomes and estimation, table 3). We assumed an interclass correlation of 0.05 for tasks but the observed was 0.179 (table 3). We have included reference to these issues in the discussion as follows:

“a higher than expect baseline rate of dialysis-related tasks (45.6 observed vs 15% assumed) and centre interclass correlation (observed 0.179 vs 0.05 assumed,”

Thank you. Certainly we did observe a higher than expected baseline level of task participation and we expand further in our discussion on the size of this. Although we cannot be 100% sure, we doubt longer follow-up would have made a significant difference because the issue around the decline in task participation in the cohort demonstrated in Figure 4B, which may have affected those who had improved their task participation during the study if follow-up was increased.

We have made more specific reference to the second point in our discussion:

“The intervention had greatest impact on individuals who were undertaking fewer tasks at baseline and possibly those with the lowest levels of patient activation although these individuals could regress as was observed in those with higher task participation in baseline.”

Thank you for this important question – the person-time resource (specifically nurses) use required to deliver the intervention at sites is the subject of a separate analysis. It can be indirectly estimated from the S2 table. Because of the methods and granularity associated with the comprehensive person-time analysis it cannot be accommodated in this manuscript and will form a separate output.

I have a couple of comments that the authors might want to address.

Thank you – this issue is important. In our manuscript when we refer to frailty as a mechanism we originally cite it as a potential reason individuals with a higher number of baseline tasks subsequently reduce their number of tasks. One might assume, therefore, that those who do then increase their task participation are from the subgroup of patients who are doing fewer tasks at baseline and are more likely to be those with less comorbidity from this group. We are fortunate to have a large sample size in which these subgroups exist. We have further elaborated on this issue in our discussion by extending the following statement:

“This increasing frailty may have contributed to a reduced dialysis task participation during the course of the study among those who were undertaking more than 5 tasks at the outset, and baseline frailty could have prevented a subgroup of individuals with low task participation at baseline from increasing their task participation.”

I would like to see more detailed discussion on the putative reasons for not achieving primary outcome and if a different study design would have shown positive results.

We have added the following with references:

“Future interventions in this area should explore approaches to rehabilitate individuals whose self-efficacy has acutely or chronically declined, and intervention/trial designs that focus on incident patients and utilise Transitional Care Units to support individuals who are starting dialysis to learn tasks. (31)”

________________________________________

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253966.r003

Decision Letter 1

Shahrad Taheri

17 Jun 2021

A breakthrough series collaborative to increase patient participation with hemodialysis tasks: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial

PONE-D-21-06704R1

Dear Dr. Fotheringham,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Shahrad Taheri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253966.r004

Acceptance letter

Shahrad Taheri

9 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-06704R1

A breakthrough series collaborative to increase patient participation with hemodialysis tasks: A stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial

Dear Dr. Fotheringham:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Shahrad Taheri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Checklist

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(46.4KB, pdf)}

S1 Fig. Sequence of learning events and action period calls.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(493.4KB, pdf)}

S2 Fig. Patient participation in individual dialysis tasks at baseline and end of the stepped wedge (<5 tasks at baseline).

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(389.6KB, pdf)}

S3 Fig. Patient participation in individual dialysis tasks at baseline and end of the stepped wedge (5+ tasks at baseline).

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(389.6KB, pdf)}

S4 Fig. Secular trends in secondary endpoints, stratified by randomisation sequence.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(428.7KB, pdf)}

S5 Fig. Secular trends in hospitalisation.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(560.4KB, pdf)}

S1 Table. Components of the breakthrough series collaborative underpinning the delivery of the intervention.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(373.9KB, pdf)}

S2 Table. ICD10 codes for the reasons for hospitalisation.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(363KB, pdf)}

S3 Table. Individual symptoms of the POS-S renal score.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(372.6KB, pdf)}

S4 Table. Cluster characteristics.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(656.3KB, pdf)}

S5 Table. Subgroup analysis of primary endpoint.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(378.5KB, pdf)}

S6 Table. Hospitalisation rates, rate ratios and odds ratios.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(537.9KB, pdf)}

S1 Text. Description and results of fidelity assessment.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(539.6KB, pdf)}

S1 File

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(515.8KB, pdf)}

Data Availability Statement

[pone.0253966.ref001] 1.Saran R, Robinson B, Abbott KC, Agodoa LY, Albertus P, Ayanian J, et al. US Renal Data System 2016 Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of Kidney Disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2017;69(3 Suppl 1):A7–A8. Epub 2017/02/27. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.12.004 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6605045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref002] 2.Gair R, Steenkamp M. Valuing Individuals: Transforming Participation in Chronic Kidney Disease2016. Available from: https://www.thinkkidneys.nhs.uk/ckd/resources/reports/.

[pone.0253966.ref003] 3.Knight R. A Patient’s Perspective on Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2019;14(12):1795–7. doi: 10.2215/CJN.10560919 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref004] 4.Nair D, Cavanaugh KL. Measuring Patient Activation as Part of Kidney Disease Policy: Are We There Yet? Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2020:ASN.2019121331. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2019121331 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref005] 5.Morton RL, Sellars M. From Patient-Centered to Person-Centered Care for Kidney Diseases. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2019;14(4):623–5. doi: 10.2215/CJN.10380818 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref006] 6.Griva K, Nandakumar M, Ng JH, Lam KFY, McBain H, Newman SP. Hemodialysis Self-management Intervention Randomized Trial (HED-SMART): A Practical Low-Intensity Intervention to Improve Adherence and Clinical Markers in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2018;71(3):371–81. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2017.09.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref007] 7.Moattari M, Ebrahimi M, Sharifi N, Rouzbeh J. The effect of empowerment on the self-efficacy, quality of life and clinical and laboratory indicators of patients treated with hemodialysis: a randomized controlled trial. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2012;10(1):115. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref008] 8.Huang B, Li Z, Wang Y, Xia J, Shi T, Jiang J, et al. Effectiveness of self-management support in maintenance haemodialysis patients with hypertension: A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. Nephrology (Carlton). 2018;23(8):755–63. Epub 2017/07/01. doi: 10.1111/nep.13098 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref009] 9.Howren MB, Kellerman QD, Hillis SL, Cvengros J, Lawton W, Christensen AJ. Effect of a Behavioral Self-Regulation Intervention on Patient Adherence to Fluid-Intake Restrictions in Hemodialysis: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Behav Med. 2016;50(2):167–76. Epub 2015/12/04. doi: 10.1007/s12160-015-9741-0 [pii]. . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref010] 10.Wileman V, Farrington K, Chilcot J, Norton S, Wellsted DM, Almond MK, et al. Evidence that self-affirmation improves phosphate control in hemodialysis patients: a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. Ann Behav Med. 2014;48(2):275–81. Epub 2014/02/18. doi: 10.1007/s12160-014-9597-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref011] 11.Glidewell L, Boocock S, Pine K, Campbell R, Hackett J, Gill S, et al. Using behavioural theories to optimise shared haemodialysis care: a qualitative intervention development study of patient and professional experience. Implementation science: IS. 2013;8:118. Epub 2013/10/09. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-118 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3851734. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref012] 12.Fotheringham J, Barnes T, Dunn L, Lee S, Ariss S, Young T, et al. Rationale and design for SHAREHD: a quality improvement collaborative to scale up Shared Haemodialysis Care for patients on centre based haemodialysis. BMC Nephrol. 2017;18(1):335. Epub 2017/11/28. doi: 10.1186/s12882-017-0748-6 [pii]. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5702083. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref013] 13.Hemming K, Taljaard M, McKenzie JE, Hooper R, Copas A, Thompson JA, et al. Reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomised trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement with explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2018;363:k1614. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1614 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref014] 14.Improvement I. The breakthrough series: IHI’s collaborative model for achieving breakthrough improvement. IHI Innovation Series white paper Boston: Institute for Healthcare Improvement. 2003.

[pone.0253966.ref015] 15.The Shared Haemodialysis Care programme. Sharing Haemodialysis Care 2019 [1/08/2019]. Available from: https://www.shareddialysis-care.org.uk/.

[pone.0253966.ref016] 16.Barnes T, Hancock K, Dainton M. Training nurses to support greater patient engagement in haemodialysis. Journal of Renal Care. 2013;39(S2):10–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-6686.2013.12028.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref017] 17.Data Access Request Service (DARS) [cited 2021 05/06/2021]. Available from: https://digital.nhs.uk/services/data-access-request-service-dars.

[pone.0253966.ref018] 18.The Health Foundation. Enabling self-management and shared haemodialysis care in hospital based dialysis. 2015.

[pone.0253966.ref019] 19.Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Mahoney ER, Tusler M. Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res. 2004;39(4 Pt 1):1005–26. Epub 2004/07/03. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1361049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref020] 20.Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36. Epub 2011/04/12. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3220807. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref021] 21.Murphy EL, Murtagh FE, Carey I, Sheerin NS. Understanding symptoms in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease managed without dialysis: use of a short patient-completed assessment tool. Nephron Clin Pract. 2009;111(1):c74–80. Epub 2008/12/18. doi: 10.1159/000183177 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref022] 22.Campbell MJ, Walters SJ. How to design, analyse and report cluster randomised trials in medicine and health related research: John Wiley & Sons; 2014. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref023] 23.Cabada J, Rhodes C, Mckinnell JC, Fluck R, editors. The implementation of a comprehensive shared care initiative in a larger haemodialysis unit. Poster British Renal Society. Leeds July 2015. British Renal Society; 2015; Leeds. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref024] 24.Chew LD, Griffin JM, Partin MR, Noorbaloochi S, Grill JP, Snyder A, et al. Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(5):561–6. Epub 2008/03/13. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0520-5 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2324160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref025] 25.Fotheringham J, Jacques RM, Fogarty D, Tomson CRV, El Nahas M, Campbell MJ. Variation in centre-specific survival in patients starting renal replacement therapy in England is explained by enhanced comorbidity information from hospitalization data. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2013;29(2):422–30. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gft363 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref026] 26.Wells S, Tamir O, Gray J, Naidoo D, Bekhit M, Goldmann D. Are quality improvement collaboratives effective? A systematic review. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2018;27(3):226–40. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006926 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref027] 27.Sethna CB, Bryant K, Munshi R, Warady BA, Richardson T, Lawlor J, et al. Risk Factors for and Outcomes of Catheter-Associated Peritonitis in Children: The SCOPE Collaborative. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2016:CJN.02540316. doi: 10.2215/CJN.02540316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref028] 28.Suri RS, Li L, Nesrallah GE. The risk of hospitalization and modality failure with home dialysis. Kidney Int. 2015;88(2):360–8. Epub 2015/03/19. doi: 10.1038/ki.2015.68 ki201568 [pii]. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4526768. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref029] 29.Flythe JE, Mangione TW, Brunelli SM, Curhan GC. Patient-stated preferences regarding volume-related risk mitigation strategies for hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;9(8):1418–25. Epub 2014/06/07. doi: 10.2215/CJN.03280314 CJN.03280314 [pii]. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4123390. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref030] 30.Parry GJ, Carson-Stevens A, Luff DF, McPherson ME, Goldmann DA. Recommendations for Evaluation of Health Care Improvement Initiatives. Academic Pediatrics. 2013;13(6, Supplement):S23–S30. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2013.04.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref031] 31.Hemming K, Taljaard M, Forbes A. Analysis of cluster randomised stepped wedge trials with repeated cross-sectional samples. Trials. 2017;18(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1833-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253966.ref032] 32.Bowman BT. Transitional Care Units: Greater Than the Sum of Their Parts. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2019;14(5):765–7. doi: 10.2215/CJN.12301018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

A breakthrough series collaborative to increase patient participation with hemodialysis tasks: A stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial

James Fotheringham

Tania Barnes

Louese Dunn

Sonia Lee

Steven Ariss

Tracey Young

Stephen J Walters

Paul Laboi

Andy Henwood

Rachel Gair

Martin Wilkie

Roles

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Introduction

Table 1. Primary endpoint–five or more dialysis related tasks.

Materials and methods

Study design

Fig 1. Study patient and cluster flow though the stepped wedge randomised controlled trial.

Fig 2. Diagram of stepped intervention across 12 clusters (renal centres).

Participants

Randomisation and masking

Procedures

Fig 3. Diagram of the SHAREHD intervention.

Outcomes

Statistical analysis

Results

Patient characteristics and numbers analysed

Table 2. Baseline patient characteristics.

Outcomes and estimation

Fig 4. Secular trend of primary endpoint (5 or more tasks or home hemodialysis).

Table 3. Primary endpoint of five or more tasks or home hemodialysis, and secondary endpoints: Effect sizes.

Fig 5. Patient participation in individual dialysis tasks at baseline and end of the stepped wedge randomised controlled trial in individuals with data at both timepoints (n = 427).

Subgroup and sensitivity analyses

Discussion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Shahrad Taheri

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Shahrad Taheri

Roles

Acceptance letter

Shahrad Taheri

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases