Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND CHILDREN díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 Jan 2009

Irish Nephrology Society.

We will proceed to our meeting with the Irish Nephrology Society. I welcome Dr. George Mellotte, the society's president. The Irish Nephrology Society was anxious to engage with the committee on a broad range of issues relevant to its work but we thought an engagement with the society now in the context of the primary care strategy would be useful. If it is necessary to meet the society again to examine broader issues, I am sure the committee will be happy to do that.

I draw the witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not extend to them. I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such way as to make him or her identifiable. The witnesses are very welcome and we have their detailed paper. We would be happy to hear a brief synopsis of it before going to questions from members.

Dr. George Mellotte

May I first introduce Dr. Catherine Wall who is a national specialty director in the Irish Nephrology Society and the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland? The Irish Nephrology Society represents doctors and scientists caring for patients with kidney disease. It has an integral role acting as the advocate for renal patients and in the education and training of medical practitioners. According to most international estimates, one in ten adults in the world suffer from some form of kidney damage, and most of these are unaware of it. In Ireland this translates as up to 400,000.

More significant kidney disease, the type we look after, affects up to 180,000 patients in whom there is a very significant risk factor of cardiovascular disease and premature death. On average, the risk of dying is between twice and 40 times higher than in patients without kidney disease. This risk increases as the kidney disease worsens.

In the Irish context, Dr. Liam Glynn in Galway studied a group of west of Ireland patients. He showed that for every 10% drop in kidney function there is a 20% rise in the risk of having another cardiac event and a 33% rise in the risk of dying. However, dialysis or death is not the inevitable outcome for kidney disease patients. There are many hidden risk factors that, if managed appropriately, can prevent or slow the progression of the disease. It is important to realise that many other diseases almost always complicate renal failure. Some are due to the underlying disease, such as diabetes, while others, such as anemia, bone disease and heart failure, are the consequence of the renal failure itself.

In the past, renal services have typically focused on the needs of patients who are on dialysis or who have a transplant. However, there is a large cohort of other patients who are either at risk of renal failure, have unrecognised renal failure or who have not been referred to specialist renal services. In Ireland, it is estimated that there are over 30 patients with chronic kidney disease for every individual who is either on dialysis or a transplant. The early identification and management of patients with conditions associated with the development of renal disease should ultimately reduce the incidence and prevalence of end-stage kidney disease. For this we are looking at primary prevention. The aim of primary prevention is to prevent the occurrence of the disease by addressing causal risk factors.

Screening for kidney disease is easy, inexpensive and can be done in a primary care setting. It can be targeted at the highest risk group. For example, one in three patients over the age of 50 who has diabetes or hypertension will have significant kidney disease. Proper investigation, specific drug therapy and long-term medical monitoring can significantly improve prognosis and reduce the risk of dying. It is easy to detect these patients by blood pressure monitoring, chemical screening and routine urine testing. Prompt detection facilitates early review in a renal unit to allow the slowing or halting of the progression of the disease.

I would emphasise, however, that the majority of patients with and at risk of chronic kidney disease are primarily cared for by general practitioners. It is not possible, nor is it necessary, for all patients with chronic kidney disease to be reviewed by a nephrologist.

I want to point out the work the Irish Nephrology Society has done in implementing initiatives to help identify patients at risk in the primary care setting. One is the introduction of a test known as an EGFR for the evaluation of kidney function to simplify the early detection of renal disease. Individual nephrologists have worked with local laboratories to configure their reporting of kidney function tests to include EGFRs. It has been rolled out in a number of hospitals. It does not require additional expenditure. All it requires is the manipulation of data generated by the laboratory rather than additional testing and then disseminating guidelines to simplify and bring concordance to the generic management of kidney disease in the primary care setting.

A sub-committee of the Irish Nephrology Society and the Irish College of General Practitioners has developed Irish guidelines. They have been published in paper format and they are also available on the website of the Irish Nephrology Society at www.nephrology.ie.

Chronic kidney disease places a large burden on society in terms of morbidity, mortality, quality of life and cost. It effects many people and is becoming more prevalent. Its burden is unequally distributed with greater occurrence among the elderly and those already suffering from chronic diseases. There is clear evidence that preventive strategies could reduce the burden of the disease process, but these strategies are not yet deployed in a systematic fashion.

I welcome Dr. Mellotte and Dr. Wall, and thank them for the presentation. I could not agree more that there is a grave shortage of nephrologists throughout the country, as there are in many specialties. The Irish Nephrology Society has probably interacted with the Irish College of General Practitioners, which will have agreed various protocols. How do the witnesses see the primary care strategy evolving in future? In larger primary care centres, serving populations of 25,000 to 30,000, I have seen how the service can be brought to people by visiting consultants, instead of people looking for the service. In other words, why should 35 people have to leave Balbriggan to go to Beaumont Hospital, when one consultant could go from that hospital to Balbriggan to see the patients, particularly in an area like nephrology where there is no need for so much high tech equipment? In any event, many of the bigger primary care units will have x-ray, ultrasound, CT and MRI. Does Dr. Mellotte see a future role for nephrology consultants in that regard? I would have thought that nephrology, like rheumatology, would lend itself to that very well.

We will take a round of questions. It is easier that way.

What is the most important thing the Irish Nephrology Society would like to see in primary care to address the issue of renal disease?

The witnesses are welcome and I wish to ask a couple of questions. Dr. Mellotte talked about the introduction of an EGFR evaluation of kidney function. He suggested that it does not require additional expenditure and said it was available in certain parts of the country. Can he say a bit more about that because we should definitely recommend anything that does not involve additional expenditure, if it has a positive benefit.

Peritoneal dialysis is referred to in the appendix. Dr. Mellotte suggested that it is not suitable for many patients. I happen to know somebody who did operate that kind of dialysis and it worked very well for her. Does Dr. Mellotte feel that more patients could use that method? It is obviously handier for patients and is probably more cost effective also.

This is one occasion where I can calmly mention Tallaght because both our visitors are from that hospital. I welcome them in a special way. Those of us who have had contact with the Irish Nephrology Society were anxious for its representatives to attend this committee, so it is important that this presentation has taken place.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan made a very relevant point in that regard. In the excellent presentation that was made the word "prevention" jumped out at me, as it has before. When Tallaght Hospital opened in 1998, Deputy Rory O'Hanlon was one of the esteemed Ministers for Health who created that situation. It was at a time when other hospitals did not want Tallaght to be built or opened. Tallaght Hospital is a fact now and provides a tremendous service to a wide catchment area, including parts of Kildare and Wicklow down to Carnew.

Like all other hospitals, Tallaght is not just about the accident and emergency unit, which is the dominant factor in any hospital. We must continuously stress the importance of health promotion. This is one presentation where that message comes across strongly, although other presentations made similar points. This is a strong message, however, and Deputy Jan O'Sullivan has highlighted it. Where do we go from here? I am sure that Deputy Áine Brady — whose area of Kildare is also included in Tallaght Hospital's catchment — and the Chairman will support me in saying that it is important to do something about the service offered by the Irish Nephrology Society. On a number of occasions over the past two days, we have talked about treating people elsewhere rather than sending them to hospital. Both doctors know all about my town. We have a very strong primary care ethos but we have much to add to it. The GPs are in place and we have a number of excellent health centres. A primary care team facility will be set up shortly in Tallaght.

I do not want to say anything that might upset the doctors but how do we get them out of the hospital building into the community more often? I am not saying they do not reach out to the community. One message I will take away from these two days of hearings is the importance of treating people in the community rather than sending them to hospital where they fall into all sorts of other traps and of providing the kind of services communities need.

I was excited by the presentation. I met the doctors before and I know what they are trying to achieve. The Chairman was very helpful to those of us who wanted this presentation. I hope the doctors will guide us on where we might go from here.

I thank the doctors for the presentation. On the development of primary care and primary care teams, what recommendations would they make on bringing the service to the people? Patients travel long distances to see consultants. How can much of that work be done in the primary care centre?

On home dialysis, what is state-of-the-art in terms of how patients needing dialysis should be looked after? I compliment the doctors' colleagues in Cavan and Omagh on winning an award for cross-Border co-operation at the Europe Health Forum. How do the doctors see that developing in terms of the provision of services? What are the links between the Irish Nephrology Society and the Irish Kidney Association?

I welcome Dr. Mellotte and his colleague. I apologise I was late for the presentation. Deputies O'Connor and O'Hanlon have asked the questions I would like to ask. To where do we go from here? How do the doctors see us managing patients closer to home?

I thank members for their questions. Dr. Mellotte made the point very forcefully before about the problem which arises for patients travelling for dialysis. Deputy O'Connor spoke about consultants going out into the community to meet the patients. Do the doctors see a situation in which we should suggest in our report, which I hope will have some effect in the implementation of the primary healthcare strategy, that there should be dialysis facilities in these primary health care centres as they are developed and that it should be a core part of what is done in a network of these centres?

Dr. George Mellotte

There are common themes running through this. We very much believe in empowering the GP to look after the people with mild to moderate renal impairment and in giving them guidelines and the tools to know what they should be doing with their patents. This can be managed quite easily in a primary care setting.

In the UK, general practitioners are rewarded for doing this. They are given financial incentives to manage these patients in a primary care setting and to achieve certain target goals. If they identify patients and if they get them to their target goals, they get rewards. That is one way to aid and abet the prevention strategies. I will defer to Dr. Catherine Wall, who has a particular interest in both forms of home dialysis.

Dr. Catherine Wall

Home dialysis, or CAPD, was referred to. There was also a question on whether we should take people out of the hospital environment. I spent a long time in Canada and in the UK. One of the models of dialysis we had was a home therapies unit where patients would come for three to six weeks' training, depending on the modality of dialysis chosen. The choice was between peritoneal dialysis, which requires a tube in the tummy and fluid being instilled several times a day, seven days a week. It is a continuous form of dialysis treatment.

On average, these patients come to hospital once a month or once every two months. Deliveries are made directly to their homes. They are in charge of their therapy, although sometimes family members do it for them if they are incapacitated. Blind patients, patients with one hand and people in their 80s have done this treatment. As a unit, we have particular expertise in delivering this therapy. It started in our unit in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

That said, we have just audited our peritoneal dialysis figures and we have a very good take on rates and a very low rates of infection. We can tell this to our patients. However, only 20% to 25% of our patients take up the option of dialysis.

The ethos when one delivers renal care is that the patient must make an educated and informed choice. Education must begin from the first time one encounters that patient, ideally in the primary care setting. To that end, over the past two years, we have had two very successful GP training days where we have brought people from the community into the hospital to introduce them to the concept of renal replacement therapy. Many people had never seen peritoneal dialysis before. For them to go away and counsel their patients on its availability was a very good start.

We believe in dialysis in the community. The other link would be the therapy of home haemodialysis, which was particularly strong in Canada. Interestingly when haemodialysis was introduced, it started off as a home based therapy and not a hospital therapy. Then it became economically more viable to bring patients to the institution because we were taking on much fewer patients.

In the UK, there was a consensus group and a NICE guideline was published to try to bring haemodialysis into the community again in the form of satellite units which are minimally staffed and where patients put themselves on machines or where there are healthcare technicians with perhaps one nurse supervising the unit. One is bringing care to the community, reducing the burden on the hospital and empowering the patient.

The next step up from that is the concept of dialysis in the patient's home. We already have that with peritoneal dialysis but one is talking about putting a haemodialysis machine in the patient's home. The patient would dialyse more frequently for more hours, very frequently at night time. Studies in Canada and in the UK have shown that these patients return to work, there is a restoration of fertility, they come off anaemia drugs and blood pressure tablets and some even choose not have a kidney transplant because their quality of life improves so dramatically.

If I had the choice of the modality I was offering a patient, or if I was educating a patient, I would say home therapy first. I would like the patient to have a choice between home haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. I would say hospital therapy second.

In terms of home haemodialysis, a very specific infrastructure is required and one needs a minimum of 20 patients on a programme before it irons out the kinks. There is a very significant cost requirement for the set up of that programme, certainly in the first one year to two years of initiating it. There is a home training unit set up in the Beacon renal facility, so there are facilities already in Ireland. If we were allowed to tap into those facilities working with industry, we could see the development of a home haemodialysis service here within one to two years.

It is expertise many nephrologists returning to Ireland carry with them and it would be one of our goals. We had actually envisaged setting up a home haemodialysis training house in the community in Tallaght to look at training the local population and keeping them out of hospital entirely. That is a very long answer to a short question.

What can we do to help the doctors realise that goal?

Dr. Catherine Wall

The committee could empower us to look at it as a therapy. It came up in our renal strategy as being one way to diminish the demands on the already very stretched hospital based services. At present, we are dialysing over 100 patients in our unit in Tallaght and 50 patients in the Beacon facility. We are set up to dialyse 70 patients in total, so we are overstretched. Whenever we have an acute patient, we juggle patients to try to facilitate that patient. We want to bring care to the community.

I refer to Deputy O'Sullivan's question on eGFR. It is an internal lab situation but would not have any cost.

Dr. George Mellotte

It is a calculation based on a number of variables, including one's age, one's serum creatinine and one or two other variables. It is derived from a study done in the United States. It correlates approximately one's percentage kidney function from one's serum creatinine.

It would be a better measure than urea and creatinine. It will be a gold standard.

Dr. George Mellotte

A much better measurement.

Perhaps this is where we can help Dr. Mellotte. First, why is it not universally available, particularly if there is no resource issue involved, and how can we help him make it happen? Second, the home therapy sounds wonderful but surely there is a cost issue. Is it more expensive than bringing people to hospital?

On EGFR, how can we help Dr. Mellotte make that happen? As a general practitioner, it sticks out like a sore thumb. This would be a significant benefit.

How much does home therapy cost per person per year for haemodialysis and for peritoneal dialysis, and how does that compare to setting up a small unit in a primary care centre?

Dr. George Mellotte

Part of the reason EGFR has not rolled out may be software related. Part of it is a slight reluctance, dare I say it, to open the floodgates. The problem is there is no point in diagnosing 180,000 people and telling them they have impaired kidney function. One must empower the general practitioners. That is where Dr. Wall and ourselves are trying to educate our patients, that this needs to be done, these are the guidelines, this is who one should refer and this is when one should refer them. There is a certain reluctance that if we merely throw that out there, our clinics will be overwhelmed.

May I reassure Dr. Mellotte on that point? If general practitioners have guidelines, it would be a little like what happens in the case of asthma. Some people freak out when they hear they have asthma but when one explains that it can be like a cut on one's finger or like one's throat slit, and the person concerned has the cut-on-the-finger variety, one can get over that.

Dr. George Mellotte

We are doing that and it is being rolled out with education. It should be done.

Dr. George Mellotte

It should be HSE policy that EGFR is mandatory in all units.

I think Dr. Mellotte will find us supportive on that.

Dr. George Mellotte

Deputy Reilly's second question was about costs. The big problem about costs is the infrastructure required in the first year to put the home haemodialysis in position. After the first year, because one need not pay staff costs, it is cheaper and one can look at the different costs.

Haemodialysis is very expensive, particularly if one must travel long distances. The HSE is paying for the taxi to bring the patient to hospital, perhaps from Longford to Dublin or from Cashel to Waterford, and then the patient gets four hours' treatment with a nurse who is being paid for by the HSE. It can cost up to €60,000 per patient per year. Peritoneal dialysis is cheaper. Haemodialysis, after the first year, is probably the cheapest of the lot but it costs quite a good deal infrastructurally in the first year.

How much, or does Dr. Wall dare tell us?

Dr. Catherine Wall

We have done some costings because it was a matter on which we were keen. It is a matter of setting up the infrastructure. We may, if we were facilitated, be able to tap straight into a ready designed unit and we are looking at alternate patients' houses. That is the major factor, and then there is the issue of getting the machines. Probably, there would be set-up costs per patient of approximately €50,000 in the first year and after that one is looking at costs of approximately €10,000 a year for disposables, fluids.

As compared to €60,000 a year in a hospital setting.

Ms Catherine Wall

Yes. The cheapest form of renal replacement is transplantation.

Overall, we are discussing the future of primary care. Could there be smaller centres in large primary care centres where dialysis could take place convenient to the patient's home and what would that cost, not that I am promoting it but to give us a comparator? It would take the taxi costs out of it.

Dr. George Mellotte

If one built a small dialysis unit in a primary care centre and empowered a minimal care unit, a model which is quite common in Belgium and other countries, it would be cheaper again. One could reuse the building costs so that when someone dies or someone gets a transplant, it could be used by someone else. Certainly, it would be cheaper.

The problem is that if there are medical complications, there needs to be fast-track access and those on dialysis spend on average 15 days a year in hospital. If they are coming into hospital with complications from different satellite units, there needs to be a protective system in the hospital that allows them bypass accident and emergency.

Dr. George Mellotte

If one wants to use that model, there needs to be a system whereby nephrologists have control of their admissions and discharge, bypassing accident and emergency, and not have the problem we encountered of immunosuppresssed transplant patients getting sick and having to sit in accident and emergency departments waiting for a biopsy or having someone with dialysis looking to be transferred and getting dialysed in the middle of the night. That is one of the big problems, people coming in for dialysis being collected by taxi at 4 a.m. and travelling to Waterford or to Beaumont at night.

I was up in Gweedore visiting the North. I am not sure whether it was there or nearby, but I saw a modern outpatient unit built and ready for use. It has not been staffed and nothing is happening with it, and all the emphasis is on Letterkenny Hospital. It strikes me that this is a false economy.

That is one of the problems with the accident and emergency system. One goes down to accident and emergency where there are many who should not be there in the first place. I refer not only to those with a broken fingernails but to those who break a bone while abroad, find they cannot get a fracture clinic appointment when they return home and are told to go to accident and emergency. In Tallaght, psychiatric patients turn up to accident and emergency who should be going somewhere else. Dr. Mellotte makes a fair point, not only about his own discipline but in highlighting the problem generally.

I had a patient diagnosed in Turkey with appendicitis and sent home, who had to go to the accident and emergency in the Mater Hospital to be admitted instead of going straight in.

It happens in Tallaght.

I thank Dr. Mellotte and Dr. Wall for a worthwhile debate and leaving us much better informed on these issues. We will be producing a report on primary care. We may need to come back to them for further advice in terms of our recommendations on their area of activity.

Furthermore, our quarterly meeting with Professor Drumm and the Minister, Deputy Harney, will be in early March. I think members on all sides of the House would agree that the issues raised are ones which should form an important part of the discussion and engagement with both HSE and the Minister, and we will certainly do that. Please feel free to continue to keep in contact with the committee. I thank Dr. Mellotte and Dr. Wall for their work.

Could we get an outline in writing of costings on the different models?

The delegation could let us have something on that. On Tuesday, 10 February at 2 p.m. we will meet to hear the final submissions on primary care.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.10 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 February 2009.
Barr
Roinn