#4894 EFFICIENCY AND SAFETY OF AN ASSISTED HOME HEMODIALYSIS PROGRAM IN THE STATE OF QATAR: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Authors: Elshirbeny Mostafa Fottoh , Mohamed Mohamed Yahya Abdelhai , Almohanadi Teha , Yasin Fadumo , Joseph Shajahan , Tolba Hoda , Alkadi Mohamad , Almalki Hassan , Hamad Abdulla 
Published: June 2023

Abstract

Background and Aims
Home hemodialysis (HHD) usually done as self-care by patient themselves through a portable haemodialysis (HD) machine under training and monitoring by dialysis team. HHD offers greater patient autonomy, cost benefits, treatment-related flexibility, and improved quality of life compared to traditional in-centre HD. Uptake of HHD is limited by patient motivation, cognitive and/or physical barriers, as well as lack of support of family and community. Assisted HHD (AHHD) is a new concept where dialysis team provides HD at home. Usually, it is done by a visiting dialysis nurse using mobile HD machine. Its use is limited due to financial and logistical restriction. We like to present our unique experience in providing AHHD in the State of Qatar. Planning for our AHHD program started in July 2020. Because of COVID-19 pandemic, it faced many challenges and delays. We started first patient in July of 2021. In our program, we use traditional HD machine (not portable) with connection set up in the house in a dedicated room. Special training was provided to AHHD staff regarding the special care needed for home setting (including social, complication of home dialysis settings, decision making, follow up of protocols and policies, etc.)

Method
We performed a retrospective study between July 1st, 2021 - December 31st, 2022. Our primary objectives were efficiency and safety of AHHD, and secondary objective was cost effectiveness. We included adult chronic HD patients (on HD &gt;3 months) using ambulance (or eligible for it) with functional dialysis access. We excluded patients who are not suitable for home environment (psychiatric illness, aggressive behaviour, etc.). Data were collected from our national electronic health record system.

Results
946 patients screened for the program. 237 were eligible (exclusion mostly due to lack of national insurance coverage or not meeting mobility/transport criteria). 121 patients refused to participate (mostly for feeling safer in the clinic setting or improper home environment), 40 patients were undecided, and 76 patients accepted and started AHHD. Age was 73+/-11 years. We had 32 males and 44 females. Mean follow up period were 7 months. 12 patients died and 2 patients returned to dialysis centre during follow up period. Only 15 out of the total 126 hospitalizations were related to dialysis (mostly due to volume overload and non-compliance with dialysis schedule and time). We had 55 patients with permcath and 21 with AV fistulas. We had 8 incidents of dialysis catheter malfunction (6 required tissue plasminogen activator installation in the house setting and only two needed catheter exchange (one had catheter related infection)). No reported significant access bleeding or hypotension episodes. We had 20 technical incidents during the study related to electricity or water supply failures. All incidents were resolved without much interruption of treatment. The program overall was cost effective and reduced cost by over 25% (mostly related to saving of ambulance cost). Patients and their families were very satisfied with the program overall.

Conclusion
We present a unique successful program related to providing AHHD. Targeting certain dialysis population showed great care, safety, cost saving, better QOL and satisfaction.