PAlliative Care in chronic Kidney diSease: the PACKS study—quality of life, decision making, costs and impact on carers in people managed without dialysis

BACKGROUND: The number of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease opting for conservative management rather than dialysis is unknown but likely to be growing as increasingly frail patients with advanced renal disease present to renal services. Conservative kidney management includes ongoing medical input and support from a multidisciplinary team. There is limited evidence concerning patient and carer experience of this choice. This study will explore quality of life, symptoms, cognition, frailty, performance decision making, costs and impact on carers in people with advanced chronic kidney disease managed without dialysis and is funded by the National Institute of Health Research in the UK.

METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, longitudinal study, patients will be recruited in the UK, by renal research nurses, once they have made the decision not to embark on dialysis. Carers will be asked to 'opt-in' with consent from patients. The approach includes longitudinal quantitative surveys of quality of life, symptoms, decision making and costs for patients and quality of life and costs for carers, with questionnaires administered quarterly over 12 months. Additionally, the decision making process will be explored via qualitative interviews with renal physicians/clinical nurse specialists.

DISCUSSION: The study is designed to capture patient and carer profiles when conservative kidney management is implemented, and understand trajectories of care-receiving and care-giving with the aim of optimising palliative care for this population. It will explore the interactions that lead to clinical care decisions and the impact of these decisions on informal carers with the intention of improving clinical outcomes for patients and the experiences of care givers.

Defining Democracy: Voting Procedures in Decision-making, Elections and Governance

Book Review: Emerson, Peter, Defining Democracy: Voting Procedures in Decision-making, Elections and
Governance (2nd edn), Springer, London, 2012,

Recovery of Sleep or Recovery of Self? A Grounded Theory Study of Residents’ Decision Making Regarding How to Spend Their Nonclinical Postcall Time

Purpose: As resident work hours policies evolve, residents’ off-duty time remains poorly understood. Despite assumptions about how residents should be using their postcall, off-duty time, there is little research on how residents actually use this time and the reasoning underpinning their activities. This study sought to understand residents’ nonclinical postcall activities when they leave the hospital, their decision-making processes, and their perspectives on the relationship between these activities and their well-being or recovery.

Method: The study took place at a Liaison Committee on Medical Education–accredited Canadian medical school from 2012 to 2014. The authors recruited a purposive and convenience sample of postgraduate year 1–5 residents from six surgical and nonsurgical specialties at three hospitals affiliated with the medical school. Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, semistructured interviews were conducted, audio-taped, transcribed, anonymized, and combined with field notes. The authors analyzed interview transcripts using constant comparative analysis and performed post hoc member checking.

Results: Twenty-four residents participated. Residents characterized their predominant approach to postcall decision making as one of making trade-offs between multiple, competing, seemingly incompatible, but equally valuable, activities. Participants exhibited two different trade-off orientations: being oriented toward maintaining a normal life or toward mitigating fatigue.

Conclusions: The authors’ findings on residents’ trade-off orientations suggest a dual recovery model with postcall trade-offs motivated by the recovery of sleep or of self. This model challenges the dominant viewpoint in the current duty hours literature and suggests that the duty hours discussion must be broadened to include other recovery processes.

Genomic markers for decision making:What is preventing us from using markers?

The advent of novel genomic technologies that enable the evaluation of genomic alterations on a genome-wide scale has significantly altered the field of genomic marker research in solid tumors. Researchers have moved away from the traditional model of identifying a particular genomic alteration and evaluating the association between this finding and a clinical outcome measure to a new approach involving the identification and measurement of multiple genomic markers simultaneously within clinical studies. This in turn has presented additional challenges in considering the use of genomic markers in oncology, such as clinical study design, reproducibility and interpretation and reporting of results. This Review will explore these challenges, focusing on microarray-based gene-expression profiling, and highlights some common failings in study design that have impacted on the use of putative genomic markers in the clinic. Despite these rapid technological advances there is still a paucity of genomic markers in routine clinical use at present. A rational and focused approach to the evaluation and validation of genomic markers is needed, whereby analytically validated markers are investigated in clinical studies that are adequately powered and have pre-defined patient populations and study endpoints. Furthermore, novel adaptive clinical trial designs, incorporating putative genomic markers into prospective clinical trials, will enable the evaluation of these markers in a rigorous and timely fashion. Such approaches have the potential to facilitate the implementation of such markers into routine clinical practice and consequently enable the rational and tailored use of cancer therapies for individual patients. © 2010 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.