Advance care planning for haemodialysis patients

Background End‐stage kidney disease (ESKD) is a chronic, debilitative and progressive illness that may need interventions such as dialysis, transplantation, dietary and fluid restrictions. Most patients with ESKD will require renal replacement therapy, such as kidney transplantation or maintenance dialysis. Advance care planning traditionally encompass instructions via living wills, and concern patient preferences about interventions such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation and feeding tubes, or circumstances around assigning surrogate decision makers. Most people undergoing haemodialysis are not aware of advance care planning and few patients formalise their wishes as advance directives and of those who do, many do not discuss their decisions with a physician. Advance care planning involves planning for future healthcare decisions and preferences of the patient in advance while comprehension is intact. It is an essential part of good palliative care that likely improves the lives and deaths of haemodialysis patients. Objectives The objective of this review was to determine whether advance care planning in haemodialysis patients, compared with no or less structured forms of advance care planning, can result in fewer hospital admissions or less use of treatments with life‐prolonging or curative intent, and if patient's wishes were followed at end‐of‐life. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 27 June 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. We also searched the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Social Work s (OvidSP). Selection criteria All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs (RCTs in which allocation to treatment was obtained by alternation, use of alternate medical records, date of birth or other predictable methods) looking at advance care planning versus no form of advance care planning in haemodialysis patients was considered for inclusion without language restriction. Data collection and analysis Data extraction was carried out independently by two authors using standard data extraction forms. Studies reported in non‐English language journals were translated before assessment. Where more than one publication of one study exists, reports were grouped together and the publication with the most complete data was used in the analyses. Where relevant outcomes are only published in earlier versions these da