Variation in fistula use across dialysis facilities: Is it explained by case-mix?

Navdeep Tangri, Ranjani Moorthi, Hocine Tighiouhart, Klemens B. Meyer, Dana C. Miskulin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and objectives: Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) remain the preferred vascular access for hemodialysis patients. Dialysis facilities that fail to meet Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services goals cite patient case-mix as a reason for low AVF prevalence. This study aimed to determine the magnitude of the variability in AVF usage across dialysis facilities and the extent to which patient case-mix explains it. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: The vascular access used in 10,112 patients dialyzed at 173 Dialysis Clinic Inc. facilities from October 1 to December 31, 2004, was evaluated. The access in use was considered to be an AVF if it was used for >70% of hemodialysis treatments. Mixed-effects models with a random intercept for dialysis facilities evaluated the effect of facilities on AVF usage. Sequentially adjusted multivariate models measured the extent to which patient factors (case-mix) explain variation across facilities in AVF rates. Results: 3787 patients (38%) were dialyzed using AVFs. There was a significant facility effect: 7.6% of variation in AVF use was attributable to facility. This was reduced to 7.1% after case-mix adjustment. There were no identified specific facility-level factors that explained the interfacility variation. Conclusions: AVF usage varies across dialysis facilities, and patient case-mix did not reduce this variation. In this study, 92% of the total variation in AVF usage was due to patient factors, but most were not measurable. A combination of patient factors and process indicators should be considered in adjudicating facility performance for this quality indicator.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)307-313
Number of pages7
JournalClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Volume5
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 15 2010

Fingerprint

Diagnosis-Related Groups
Arteriovenous Fistula
Fistula
Dialysis
Blood Vessels
Renal Dialysis
Risk Adjustment
Medicaid
Medicare

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Nephrology
  • Transplantation

Cite this

Variation in fistula use across dialysis facilities : Is it explained by case-mix? / Tangri, Navdeep; Moorthi, Ranjani; Tighiouhart, Hocine; Meyer, Klemens B.; Miskulin, Dana C.

In: Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, Vol. 5, No. 2, 15.03.2010, p. 307-313.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tangri, Navdeep ; Moorthi, Ranjani ; Tighiouhart, Hocine ; Meyer, Klemens B. ; Miskulin, Dana C. / Variation in fistula use across dialysis facilities : Is it explained by case-mix?. In: Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2010 ; Vol. 5, No. 2. pp. 307-313.
@article{0322116f65d741b4b4454fbf4c60a8d6,
title = "Variation in fistula use across dialysis facilities: Is it explained by case-mix?",
abstract = "Background and objectives: Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) remain the preferred vascular access for hemodialysis patients. Dialysis facilities that fail to meet Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services goals cite patient case-mix as a reason for low AVF prevalence. This study aimed to determine the magnitude of the variability in AVF usage across dialysis facilities and the extent to which patient case-mix explains it. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: The vascular access used in 10,112 patients dialyzed at 173 Dialysis Clinic Inc. facilities from October 1 to December 31, 2004, was evaluated. The access in use was considered to be an AVF if it was used for >70{\%} of hemodialysis treatments. Mixed-effects models with a random intercept for dialysis facilities evaluated the effect of facilities on AVF usage. Sequentially adjusted multivariate models measured the extent to which patient factors (case-mix) explain variation across facilities in AVF rates. Results: 3787 patients (38{\%}) were dialyzed using AVFs. There was a significant facility effect: 7.6{\%} of variation in AVF use was attributable to facility. This was reduced to 7.1{\%} after case-mix adjustment. There were no identified specific facility-level factors that explained the interfacility variation. Conclusions: AVF usage varies across dialysis facilities, and patient case-mix did not reduce this variation. In this study, 92{\%} of the total variation in AVF usage was due to patient factors, but most were not measurable. A combination of patient factors and process indicators should be considered in adjudicating facility performance for this quality indicator.",
author = "Navdeep Tangri and Ranjani Moorthi and Hocine Tighiouhart and Meyer, {Klemens B.} and Miskulin, {Dana C.}",
year = "2010",
month = "3",
day = "15",
doi = "10.2215/CJN.04430709",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "307--313",
journal = "Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN",
issn = "1555-9041",
publisher = "American Society of Nephrology",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variation in fistula use across dialysis facilities

T2 - Is it explained by case-mix?

AU - Tangri, Navdeep

AU - Moorthi, Ranjani

AU - Tighiouhart, Hocine

AU - Meyer, Klemens B.

AU - Miskulin, Dana C.

PY - 2010/3/15

Y1 - 2010/3/15

N2 - Background and objectives: Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) remain the preferred vascular access for hemodialysis patients. Dialysis facilities that fail to meet Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services goals cite patient case-mix as a reason for low AVF prevalence. This study aimed to determine the magnitude of the variability in AVF usage across dialysis facilities and the extent to which patient case-mix explains it. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: The vascular access used in 10,112 patients dialyzed at 173 Dialysis Clinic Inc. facilities from October 1 to December 31, 2004, was evaluated. The access in use was considered to be an AVF if it was used for >70% of hemodialysis treatments. Mixed-effects models with a random intercept for dialysis facilities evaluated the effect of facilities on AVF usage. Sequentially adjusted multivariate models measured the extent to which patient factors (case-mix) explain variation across facilities in AVF rates. Results: 3787 patients (38%) were dialyzed using AVFs. There was a significant facility effect: 7.6% of variation in AVF use was attributable to facility. This was reduced to 7.1% after case-mix adjustment. There were no identified specific facility-level factors that explained the interfacility variation. Conclusions: AVF usage varies across dialysis facilities, and patient case-mix did not reduce this variation. In this study, 92% of the total variation in AVF usage was due to patient factors, but most were not measurable. A combination of patient factors and process indicators should be considered in adjudicating facility performance for this quality indicator.

AB - Background and objectives: Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) remain the preferred vascular access for hemodialysis patients. Dialysis facilities that fail to meet Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services goals cite patient case-mix as a reason for low AVF prevalence. This study aimed to determine the magnitude of the variability in AVF usage across dialysis facilities and the extent to which patient case-mix explains it. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: The vascular access used in 10,112 patients dialyzed at 173 Dialysis Clinic Inc. facilities from October 1 to December 31, 2004, was evaluated. The access in use was considered to be an AVF if it was used for >70% of hemodialysis treatments. Mixed-effects models with a random intercept for dialysis facilities evaluated the effect of facilities on AVF usage. Sequentially adjusted multivariate models measured the extent to which patient factors (case-mix) explain variation across facilities in AVF rates. Results: 3787 patients (38%) were dialyzed using AVFs. There was a significant facility effect: 7.6% of variation in AVF use was attributable to facility. This was reduced to 7.1% after case-mix adjustment. There were no identified specific facility-level factors that explained the interfacility variation. Conclusions: AVF usage varies across dialysis facilities, and patient case-mix did not reduce this variation. In this study, 92% of the total variation in AVF usage was due to patient factors, but most were not measurable. A combination of patient factors and process indicators should be considered in adjudicating facility performance for this quality indicator.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77749325123&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77749325123&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2215/CJN.04430709

DO - 10.2215/CJN.04430709

M3 - Article

C2 - 20056763

AN - SCOPUS:77749325123

VL - 5

SP - 307

EP - 313

JO - Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN

JF - Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN

SN - 1555-9041

IS - 2

ER -