Kidney360 · 2025
Scaling Peritoneal Dialysis: Center Effects Thresholds in US Facilities.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shah Ankur D, Ariff Afzal, Sammartino Cara J, Raker Christina A, Hu Susie L
Аннотация
KEY POINTS: Facilities with large peritoneal dialysis programs (>20 patients) rose from 22.9% to 29%, with very large programs (>50) nearly doubling from 3.5% to 5.9%. Despite policy support, only 44.6% of facilities offered peritoneal dialysis by 2021, indicating barriers remain to widespread adoption.
BACKGROUND: Center effects in peritoneal dialysis (PD) refer to how facility patient volume affects outcomes, with larger centers typically demonstrating better patient results. Recent US policy changes have promoted PD utilization, but it remains unclear how this growth has affected center-level thresholds associated with improved outcomes. This study aimed to characterize facility-level changes in PD patient volume threshold across the United States.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study analyzing PD utilization across US dialysis facilities from 2010 to 2021 using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Dialysis Facility Compare database. The final analytic cohort included 8982 unique facilities. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models with random facility effects to examine temporal trends in facilities meeting key PD volume thresholds (>0, >20, and >50 patients), adjusting for region, facility size, and profit status.
RESULTS: From 2010 to 2021, facilities with active PD services rose from 38.4% to 44.6%. The proportion of PD-offering facilities with large programs (>20 patients) increased from 22.9% to 29%, while those with very large programs (>50 patients) nearly doubled from 3.5% to 5.9%. In adjusted analyses, facilities in 2021 had significantly higher odds of maintaining programs with >20 patients (odds ratio, 6.08; 95% confidence interval, 4.82 to 7.68) and >50 patients (odds ratio, 8.65; 95% confidence interval, 5.34 to 13.99) compared with 2010. Significant regional variation persisted, with Western facilities consistently maintaining larger PD programs than other regions.
CONCLUSIONS: While the United States has seen meaningful growth in facilities with large PD programs likely to achieve center effects thresholds, opportunities remain to expand PD access more broadly. Current policies have successfully encouraged some facilities to expand PD programs, but additional interventions may be needed to achieve more widespread adoption and address regional disparities.
BACKGROUND: Center effects in peritoneal dialysis (PD) refer to how facility patient volume affects outcomes, with larger centers typically demonstrating better patient results. Recent US policy changes have promoted PD utilization, but it remains unclear how this growth has affected center-level thresholds associated with improved outcomes. This study aimed to characterize facility-level changes in PD patient volume threshold across the United States.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study analyzing PD utilization across US dialysis facilities from 2010 to 2021 using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Dialysis Facility Compare database. The final analytic cohort included 8982 unique facilities. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models with random facility effects to examine temporal trends in facilities meeting key PD volume thresholds (>0, >20, and >50 patients), adjusting for region, facility size, and profit status.
RESULTS: From 2010 to 2021, facilities with active PD services rose from 38.4% to 44.6%. The proportion of PD-offering facilities with large programs (>20 patients) increased from 22.9% to 29%, while those with very large programs (>50 patients) nearly doubled from 3.5% to 5.9%. In adjusted analyses, facilities in 2021 had significantly higher odds of maintaining programs with >20 patients (odds ratio, 6.08; 95% confidence interval, 4.82 to 7.68) and >50 patients (odds ratio, 8.65; 95% confidence interval, 5.34 to 13.99) compared with 2010. Significant regional variation persisted, with Western facilities consistently maintaining larger PD programs than other regions.
CONCLUSIONS: While the United States has seen meaningful growth in facilities with large PD programs likely to achieve center effects thresholds, opportunities remain to expand PD access more broadly. Current policies have successfully encouraged some facilities to expand PD programs, but additional interventions may be needed to achieve more widespread adoption and address regional disparities.