OBJECTIVE: The updated 2019 National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative vascular access guidelines recommend patient-centered, multi-disciplinary construction and regular update of an individualized end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) Life-Plan (LP) for each patient, a dramatic shift from previous recommendations and policy. The objective of this study was to examine barriers and facilitators to implementing the LP among key stakeholders.
METHODS: Semi-structured individual interviews were analyzed using inductive and deductive coding. Codes were mapped to relevant domains in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
RESULTS: We interviewed 34 participants: 11 patients with end-stage kidney disease, 2 care partners, and 21 clinicians who care for patients with end-stage kidney disease. In both the clinician and the patient/care partner categories, saturation (where no new themes were identified) was reached at 8 participants. We identified significant barriers and facilitators to implementation of the ESKD LP across three CFIR domains: Innovation, Outer setting, and Inner setting. Regarding the Innovation domain, patients and care partners valued the concept of shared decision-making with their care team (CFIR construct: innovation design). However, both clinicians and patients had significant concerns about the complexity of decision-making around kidney substitutes and the ability of patients to digest the overwhelming amount of information needed to effectively participate in creating the LP (innovation complexity). Clinicians expressed concerns regarding the lack of existing evidence base which limits their ability to effectively counsel patients (innovation evidence base) and the implementation costs (innovation cost). Within the Outer Setting, both clinicians and patients were concerned about performance measurement pressure under the existing \"Fistula First\" policies and had concerns about reimbursement (financing). In the Inner Setting, clinicians and patients stressed the lack of available resources and access to knowledge and information.
CONCLUSIONS: Given the complexity of decision-making around kidney substitutes and vascular access, our findings point to the need for implementation strategies, infrastructure development, and policy change to facilitate ESKD LP development.

The recommendations recently proposed by the European and American Vascular Societies in this new \'Covid-19\' era regarding the triage of various vascular operations into urgent, emergent and programmed based on the nature of their pathology aim at reserving health care expenses and hospital staff towards managing the current unexpected worldwide pandemic to the highest possible degree. The suggestion for implementation of these changes into real-world practice, however, does not come without a cost. In particular, the recommendation for deferral of access creation in pre-dialysis patients, ethical, socio-economic and medico-legal issues arise which should be seriously taken into consideration. At the end of the day, vascular access creation is the lifeline of haemodialysis patients and the indication for surgery warrants patient-specific clinical judgement rather than \'group labelling\'.

The Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) is an evolving, literature-based set of practice guidelines designed to improve measurably the quality of life for dialysis patients. As is characteristic of guidelines, they do not change as rapidly as the literature. The K/DOQI guidelines are not meant as the definitive document and should be not treated as such. Although the guidelines are not perfect, everyone caring for chronic renal patients should be very familiar with the guidelines. It is perfectly acceptable to adopt approaches that differ from the guidelines as long as they are supported by literature. An attempt is made in this article to review the aspects of the guidelines most pertinent to the interventionalist and outline deviations from the guidelines that are supported by literature.