National feasibility survey of peritoneal dialysis key performance indicators in Thailand from provider perspective. Issue 6 (20th October 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pongpirul, Krit; Kanjanabuch, Talerngsak; Puapatanakul, Pongpratch; Chuengsaman, Piyatida; Dandecha, Phongsak; Kingwatanakul, Pornchai; Sritippayawan, Suchai; Chittinandana, Anutra; Eiam‐Ong, Somchai; Vareesangthip, Kriengsak; Tungsanga, Kriang
• Is Part Of: Nephrology. Volume 25:Issue 6(2020)
• Page Start: 483
• Page End: 490
• Publication Date: 2019-10-20
• Subjects: key performance indicators -- feasibility -- national survey -- provider perspective; Nephrology -- Periodicals; Kidneys -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Nephrologists -- Periodicals; 616.61; 616.61
• DOI: 10.1111/nep.13668
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1320-5358

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been the main method of renal replacement therapy under the "PD First" policy in Thailand since 2008. Initially, the proposed 13 key performance indicators (KPIs) raised feasibility concerns because of inequitable distribution of resources such as laboratory facilities and/or specialized health‐care staff for PD care throughout the country. Methods: Data availability and goals from the health‐care providers' perspective were explored using an online questionnaire survey for all PD centers registered with the Nephrology Society of Thailand from May to June 2016. The availability of essential data required for each KPI indicator to achieve the desired target was assessed using a 5‐point Likert scale. Results: Of the 197 centers, 119 responded to the survey (response rate of 60.41%). PD indicators with a high percentage of strongly disagree or disagree were "PD adequacy measured in the last 12 months" (26.83%), "Total weekly Kt/V ≥ 1.7" (24.59%), "3‐year PD technique survival" (21.31%), "Serum parathyroid levels within 150 to 500 pg/mL" (16.94%), and a "3‐year PD patient survival" (19.01%). As many as 34.17%, 39.19%, 27.27%, 28.93%, and 22.00%, respectively, did not anticipate that the targets could be achieved. Based on the findings from this survey, the national committee concluded that these indicators be removed, and only eight PD indicators were launched. Conclusion: Given the importance of KPIs for quality assurance and financial reimbursement, inputs from health‐care providers especially data availability and achievement of targets should be considered to ensure feasibility before the final list of indicators are launched. SUMMARY AT A GLANCE: This report is a summary of the results of a national study conducted in Thailand to assess the feasibility of reporting key performance indicators for peritoneal dialysis, which highlights clinician attitudes and the tensions inherent in developing standards, particularly in resource constrained environments.