Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background: COVID-19 required rapid adoption of virtual modalities to provide care for patients with a chronic disease. Care was initially provided by telephone, which has not been evaluated for its effectiveness by patients and providers. This study reports patients’ and nephrologists’ perceptions and preferences surrounding telephone consultation in a chronic kidney disease (CKD) clinic. Objective: To evaluate patient and physician perspectives on the key advantages and disadvantages of telephone consultations in a nephrology out-patient clinic setting. Design: Cross-sectional observational survey study. Setting: General nephrology clinic and a multidisciplinary kidney care clinic in London, Ontario, Canada. Participants: Patients with CKD who were fluent in English and participated in at least one telephone consultation with a nephrologist during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods and measurements: Nephrologists’ and participants’ input facilitated the development of both patient and nephrologist surveys. Participants provided self-reported measures in 5 domains of satisfaction: user experience, technical quality, perceived effectiveness on well-being, perceived usefulness, and effect on interaction. Nephrologists provided self-reported measures within 6 categories: general experience, time management, medication changes, quality of care, job satisfaction, and challenges/strengths. Descriptive statistics were used to present data. Content analysis was performed on 2 open-ended responses. Results: Of the 372 participants recruited, 235 participated in the survey (63% response). In all, 79% of the participants were ≥65 years old and 91% were white. Telephone consultation was a comfortable experience for 68%, and 73% felt it to be a safer alternative during the pandemic. Although 65% perceived no changes to health care access, most reported spending less time and fewer resources on transit and parking. Disadvantages to telephone consultation included a lack of physical examination and reduced patient-physician rapport. Eleven of 14 nephrologists were surveyed, with most reporting confidence in the use of telephone consultation. Physician barriers to telephone consultation included challenges with communications and lack of technology to support telephone clinics. Limitations: Our survey included a majority of older, white participants, which may not be generalizable to other participants particularly those of other ages and ethnicity. Conclusion: Although both patients and nephrologists adapted to telephone consultations, there remain opportunities to further explore populations and situations that would be better facilitated with an in-person visit. Future research in virtual care will require measurement of health care outcomes and economics. Trial registration: Not applicable as this was a survey.

Health disparities exist across different linguistic groups. Language barriers in primary care can negatively affect access to healthcare services and the quality and safety of care at the end-of-life. This study will take a novel, in-depth look at the experience of language- and/or cultural-discordant care for adults from linguistic minority groups through the eyes of primary care physicians providing palliative and/or end-of-life care. Language and cultural discordance means that the physician and patient do not speak the same language or are not from the same cultural background. Qualitative data from primary care physicians (n = 12–24) providing language-discordant end-of-life care to Francophone and/or Allophone older adults across different care models and diverse geographies in Ontario will be collected through semi-structured interviews. Reflexive thematic analysis will be used to report themes within the data and consider the influence of the social locations of the researcher and research participants, geographic considerations impacting service provision, and barriers imposed by differing primary care funding structures on the provision of palliative and end-of-life care for linguistic and cultural minority groups in Ontario. Findings from this study will identify the interconnections among language and cultural discordance, care model, geographic region, and physician perceptions of their combined effects on access to, and quality of, palliative and end-of-life care. This evidence will be key to informing clinical practice guidelines and mobilizing change to improve primary care access and quality for adults at the end-of-life from linguistic and cultural minority populations across Ontario.

Using age- and height-adjusted total kidney volume, the Mayo Clinic Imaging Classification provides a validated approach to assess the risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), but requires excluding patients with atypical imaging patterns, whose clinical characteristics have been poorly defined. We report an analysis of the prevalence, clinical and genetic characteristics of patients with atypical polycystic kidney disease by imaging. Patients from the extended Toronto Genetic Epidemiology Study of Polycystic Kidney Disease recruited between 2016 and 2018 completed a standardized clinical questionnaire, kidney function assessment, genetic testing, and kidney imaging by magnetic resonance or computed tomography. We compared the prevalence, clinical features, genetics, and renal prognosis of atypical versus typical polycystic kidney disease by imaging. Forty-six of the 523 (8.8%) patients displayed atypical polycystic kidney disease by imaging; they were older (55 vs. 43 years; P  < 0.001), and less likely to have a family history of ADPKD (26.1% vs. 74.6%; P  < 0.001), a detectable PKD1 or PKD2 mutation (9.2% vs. 80.4%; P  < 0.001), or progression to CKD stage 3 or stage 5 ( P  < 0.001). Patients with atypical polycystic kidney disease by imaging represent a distinct prognostic group with a low likelihood of progression to CKD.

Background Language and cultural discordance refer to when a physician and patient do not share the same language or culture. This can create barriers to providing high-quality care at the end-of-life (EoL). This study explores the intersections of language, culture, geography, and care model in EoL care from the perspectives of palliative care physicians. Methods In this exploratory-descriptive qualitative study, semi-structured interviews (1-h) were conducted virtually between July and November 2023. We interviewed 16 family physicians with experience providing linguistic and/or culturally discordant palliative/EoL care in various urban, suburban, and rural regions of Ontario, who practiced at community and hospital outpatient clinics, home-based care, or long-term care homes. We used reflexive thematic analysis to identify themes across the interviews guided by the intersectionality theoretical framework. Results We identified three themes 1) Visible barriers to care access due to the inability to communicate accurate information and insufficient time spent during appointments with patients; 2) Invisible barriers to care access, shaped by the Eurocentric approach to palliative care and physicians’ lack of awareness on cultural discordance; 3) Workplace supports that currently exist and interventions that physicians would like to see. Community physicians following fee-for-service models were less likely to have access to professional interpreter services. Physicians in long-term care emphasized resource limitations to providing culturally-appropriate care environments. Conclusion Cultural discordance required awareness of personal biases, while language discordance hindered basic communication. These findings will be useful in informing clinical practice guidelines and mobilizing policy-level change to improve palliative/EoL care for patients from linguistic and cultural minority groups.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic notably disrupted care for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) care, necessitating a rapid shift to telemedicine. Despite the growing use of telemedicine, the impact of this transition on patients’ experiences, particularly in Canada and considering sociocultural factors, remains underexplored. This study aims to investigate patients with CKD perspectives on telemedicine versus in-person care and to offer recommendations for enhancing telemedicine services. Objective: The objective was to understand patients with CKD views on telemedicine clinics during the pandemic compared to traditional in-person clinics. Design: This was a qualitative descriptive study employing semi-structured interviews. Setting: This study was conducted in general nephrology and multidisciplinary kidney care clinics in London, Canada. Population: The study population was English-speaking patients with CKD with at least one in-person nephrology visit before March 15, 2020, and one telemedicine appointment after March 30, 2020. Methods: Interviews were conducted using a structured guide, with transcripts analyzed line-by-line by 3 independent reviewers through directed content analysis. Themes were identified and agreed upon through group consensus. Results: Interviews with 12 participants revealed 5 key themes: (1) convenience; (2) building connection and trust; (3) necessity of in-person care; (4) role of family or caregivers; and (5) preferences for clinic types. Most participants (11/12) valued the convenience of telemedicine, noting similar levels of care compared to in-person visits. However, they found it easier to establish personal connections in face-to-face appointments. Most (8/12) preferred in-person visits if their condition worsened. Overall, a combination of in-person and telemedicine was favored, with a preference for video over telephone. Limitations: The study’s focus on one academic nephrology center in Ontario and predominantly white participants limits broader applicability. Additionally, recall bias may affect the findings due to the interview-based design. Conclusions: Telemedicine will remain integral to CKD care, with a hybrid model combining in-person and telemedicine preferred. Integrating patient feedback into future telemedicine practices is essential to enhance flexibility, access, and patient satisfaction.