This data package contains information about Dialysis Facility Compare. It comprises of data about ESRE QIP over Dialysis Adequacy, Hypercalcemia, National Healthcare Safety Network Dialysis Reporting, Total Performance Scores and Vascular Access PY 2017. It also includes data about ICH CAHPS Survey Reporting Payment Year 2017.

These are the official datasets used on the Medicare.gov Dialysis Facility Compare Website provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. These data allow you to compare the quality of care provided in Medicare-certified dialysis facilities nationwide.

A list of all dialysis facilities registered with Medicare that includes addresses and phone numbers, as well as services and quality of care provided.

The Medicare Dialysis Facilities data provides information on clinical and patient measures for Medicare-certified ESRD facilities, also known as dialysis facilities. It contains data on patient characteristics, treatment patterns, hospitalization, mortality, and transplantation patterns in Medicare-certified dialysis facilities. The following four data files are available for download each year, where yyyy denotes the fiscal year. DFR_Data_FYyyyy.csv file includes all summaries (facility- and regional-level) reported in the Dialysis Facility Report (DFR). The file includes one record for each dialysis facility and is the file recommended for download (i.e., wide format). dfr_facility_socrata_fyyyyy.csv file includes only facility-level summaries reported in the DFR. The file includes one record per measure per year (i.e., long format) and contains more records than most spreadsheet programs can handle, which will result in an incomplete load of data. Use of a database or statistical software is required. dfr_us_state_socrata_fyyyyyy.csv file includes state- and national-level summaries reported in DFR. The file includes one record per measure per year (i.e., long format). dfr_network_socrata_fyyyyyy.csv file includes ESRD network-level summaries reported in the DFR. The file includes one record per measure per year (i.e., long format).

This functionality is primarily used by health policy researchers and the media. The data provided in the tables come from the data that is displayed in the Tool and includes additional information about the ownership that is not displayed on the website.The date Modified in the zipped file indicates the date of the last refresh of the data. For information about Facilities and Vendors in a particular geographical area, you should use the Compare tool instead of downloading the data. The followings tools are represented, Dialysis Compare Tool, Helpful Contacts, Home Health Compare, Hospital Compare, Medicare Options Compare, Nursing Home Compare, Plans Quality Data, and Supplier Directory.

Dialysis Facilities Comparison Data Utah

General Information - CMS Certification Number (CCN): Unique identifier for the dialysis facility assigned by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). - Network: The network or region to which the facility belongs. - Facility Name: Name of the dialysis facility. - Five Star Date: Date range for the facility's star rating assessment. - Five Star: Star rating for the facility's overall quality (scale: 1–5). - Five Star Data Availability Code: Indicates if the five-star data is available.

Location Information - Address Line 1 / Address Line 2: Physical address of the facility. - City/Town: City where the facility is located. - State: U.S. state abbreviation. - ZIP Code: Postal code. - County/Parish: County or parish where the facility resides. - Telephone Number: Facility's contact number.

Facility Ownership and Operations - Profit or Non-Profit: Indicates the ownership type (profit or nonprofit). - Chain Owned: Whether the facility is part of a chain. - Chain Organization: Name of the parent chain, if applicable. - Late Shift: Indicates whether the facility offers late dialysis shifts. - # of Dialysis Stations: Number of available dialysis stations.

Treatment Types - Offers in-center hemodialysis: Whether the facility provides in-center hemodialysis. - Offers peritoneal dialysis: Availability of peritoneal dialysis. - Offers home hemodialysis training: Availability of home hemodialysis training.

Certification and Claims Data - Certification Date: Date when the facility was certified. - Claims Date: Date range of claims data used for assessment. - EQRS Date: Data reporting date for the End Stage Renal Disease Quality Reporting System (EQRS).

Mortality, Hospitalization, and Readmission - SMR Date: Date for Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR) reporting. - Patient Survival Category Text: Survival category (e.g., "As Expected," "Better than Expected"). - Patient Survival Data Availability Code: Indicates survival data availability. - Number of Patients Included in Survival Summary: Patients included in mortality analysis. - Mortality Rate (Facility): Mortality rate at the facility. - Mortality Rate: Upper/Lower Confidence Limit: Statistical confidence intervals for the mortality rate. - SHR Date: Date for Standardized Hospitalization Ratio (SHR) reporting. - Patient Hospitalization Category Text: Facility’s performance in hospitalizations (e.g., "Worse than Expected"). - Patient Hospitalization Data Availability Code: Indicates hospitalization data availability. - Number of Patients Included in Hospitalization Summary: Patients in hospitalization analysis. - Hospitalization Rate (Facility): Rate of hospitalizations for the facility. - SRR Date: Standardized Readmission Ratio (SRR) reporting date. - Patient Hospital Readmission Category: Performance in readmissions. - Readmission Rate (Facility): Rate of hospital readmissions within 30 days.

Transfusion and Transplant Metrics - STrR Date: Standardized Transfusion Ratio reporting date. - Patient Transfusion Category Text: Facility’s performance in blood transfusion metrics. - Transfusion Rate (Facility): Transfusion rates at the facility. - SWR Date: Standardized Waitlist Ratio reporting date. - Standardized First Kidney Transplant Waitlist Ratio: Ratio of patients on the transplant waitlist compared to expected values. - Percentage of Prevalent Patients Waitlisted: Percentage of patients on a transplant waitlist.

Emergency Department and Infection Metrics - SEDR Date: Emergency Department Encounter reporting date. - Standardized ED Visits Ratio (Facility): ED visits relative to expected values. - ED30 Date: Emergency Department visits within 30 days of hospitalization reporting date. - Standard Infection Ratio (SIR): Infection rates compared to expected values.

Clinical Metrics - Fistula Rate (Facility): Percentage of patients with arteriovenous fistula for dialysis access. - HGB < 10 g/dL / HGB > 12 g/dL: Percentage of patients with specific hemoglobin levels. - Hypercalcemia: Percentage of patients with calcium levels above 10.2 mg/dL. - Serum Phosphorus Levels: Percentage of patients in specific serum phosphorus ranges. - Kt/V Data (HD/PD): Adequacy of dialysis as measured by Kt/V for hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD).

Staff and Patient Metrics - Healthcare Worker COVID-19 Vaccination Adherence: Percentage of healthcare workers vaccinated against COVID-19. - Long-Term Catheter Usage: Percentage of patients with long-term catheter usage.

Additional Metrics - SMoSR Date: Standardized Modality Switch Ratio reporting date. - Number of Patients in Modality Summary: Patients analyzed for switching dialysis modalities. - nPCR Data: Nutritional metrics related to dialysis adequacy for pediatric patients.

The influence of prior failed kidney transplants on outcomes of peritoneal dialysis (PD) is unclear. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of patients initiating PD after a failed kidney transplant with those initiating PD without a prior history of kidney transplantation. We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases from inception until 25 November 2020. Our meta-analysis considered the absolute number of events of mortality, technical failures, and patients with peritonitis, and we also pooled multi-variable adjusted hazard ratios (HR). We included 12 retrospective studies. For absolute number of events, our analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in technique failure [RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.80–1.61; I2=52%; p = 0.48], number of patients with peritonitis [RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.97–1.32; I2=5%; p = 0.11] and mortality [RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.67–1.50; I2=63%; p = 0.99] between the study groups. The pooled analysis of adjusted HRs indicated no statistically significant difference in the risk of technique failure [HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.88–1.78; I2=79%; p = 0.22], peritonitis [HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72–1.50; I2=76%; p = 0.85] and mortality [HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.77–2.00; I2=66%; p = 0.38] between the study groups. Patients with kidney transplant failure initiating PD do not have an increased risk of mortality, technique failure, or peritonitis as compared to transplant-naïve patients initiating PD. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of prior and ongoing immunosuppression on PD outcomes.

State averages of common dialysis quality measures.

This dataset was developed by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. End-Stage Renal Disease facilities are facilities that provide dialysis care to individuals in kidney failure.The Medicare End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Program is a national health insurance program for people with ESRD. The program is designed to encourage self-care dialysis and kidney transplantation and clarify reimbursement procedures to achieve effective cost control.Most ESRD’s are certified and approved to participate in the federal Medicare program by application and adherence to federal standards.DHSS through an agreement with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), performs initial and periodic surveys, and conducts complaint investigations in regard to patient care provided in ESRD’s. March 2020 Update.

BackgroundTo increase the survival span after dialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), identifying specific cancer risks is crucial in the cancer screening of these patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the risks of various cancers in an incident dialysis group in comparison with a non-dialysis group.MethodWe conducted a nationwide cohort study by using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Patients who initially received long-term dialysis between January 1997 and December 2004, were selected and defined as the dialysis group and were matched with the non-dialysis patients (control group) according to age, sex, and index year. Competing risk analysis was used to estimate cumulative incidence and subdistribution hazard ratios (SHRs) of the first cancer occurrence.ResultsAfter consideration for the competing risk of mortality, the dialysis group showed a significantly higher 7-year cancer incidence rate than did the control group (6.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.0%-6.7% vs 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.4%-2.1%; P

Introduction: The treatment offered to chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients before starting hemodialysis (HD) impacts prognosis. Objective: We seek differences among incident HD patients according to the distance between home and the dialysis center. Methods: We included 179 CKD patients undergoing HD. Patients were stratified in two groups: "living near the dialysis center" (patients whose hometown was in cities up to 100 km from the dialysis center) or as "living far from the dialysis center" (patients whose hometown was more than 100 km from the dialysis center). Socioeconomic status, laboratory results, awareness of CKD before starting HD, consultation with nephrologist before the first HD session, and type of vascular access when starting HD were compared between the two groups. Comparisons of continuous and categorical variables were performed using Student's t-test and the Chi-square test, respectively. Results: Ninety (50.3%) patients were classified as "living near the dialysis center" and 89 (49.7%) as "living far from the dialysis center". Patients living near the dialysis center were more likely to know about their condition of CKD than those living far from the dialysis center, respectively 46.6% versus 28.0% (p = 0.015). Although without statistical significance, patients living near the dialysis center had more frequent previous consultation with nephrologists (55.5% versus 42.6%; p = 0.116) and first HD by fistula (30.0% versus 19.1%; p = 0.128) than those living far from the dialysis center. Conclusion: There are potential advantages of CKD awareness, referral to nephrologists and starting HD through fistula among patients living near the dialysis center.

Abstract Introduction: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) compromises the health and routine of the patient. On the fifth stage of CKD, the patient becomes eligible to start renal replacement therapy: hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) or kidney transplantation. The type of CKD treatment is essential to improving quality of life of the patient. Objective: To compare the quality of life of CKD stage 5 patients who perform HD and home PD. Methods: Cross-sectional study with data collection, by convenience, through the application of socioeconomic and KDQOL SF-36 questionnaires in HD and PD patients of the Pro-Renal Foundation and satellite clinics in Curitiba-PR. Results: The sample was 338 patients, 222 HD and 116 PD. Average age: 54.4 years for HD group (± 15.28) and 58.00 for the DP group (± 13.99). The variables: work status (p < 0.05), encouragement by dialysis staff (p < 0.01) and patient satisfaction (p < 0.001) were in favor of DP; while physical functioning (p < 0.05) and emotional function (p < 0.01) were to HD. Conclusion: Objectively, PD was more favorable regarding quality of life, for the large number of items with significant results when compared to HD. However, the two variables of greatest significance found in HD (physical functioning and emotional functioning) ended up having a much greater impact on well-being and daily-life of the patient in the environment external to the clinic than those who were higher in DP, making HD the most favorable for patient quality of life.

Comprehensive dataset containing 106 verified Dialysis center businesses in New York, United States with complete contact information, ratings, reviews, and location data.

Comprehensive dataset containing 10,836 verified Dialysis center businesses in United States with complete contact information, ratings, reviews, and location data.

Mandated reporting of Weekly Aggregate Case and Death Count data among dialysis patients and dialysis facility staff (healthcare personnel or HCP) in the United States was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. This dataset will contain weekly aggregate data from January 1, 2021, through May 10, 2023, and will remain publicly available. This archived public use dataset contains reported COVID-19 case and death data per week for all states and territories, along with weekly totals for the entire United States, throughout the given timeframe.

Recent evidence documented that dialyzers and hemodialytic techniques yield different dialytic performances. The study aims to compare uremic toxins removal and iron status between on-line hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF), high-flux hemodialysis (HF-HD), expanded hemodialysis (HDx), and HFR Aequilibrium (HFR-Aeq). A single-center retrospective observational study enrolled 52 patients on chronic HD. Each study group (HFR-Aeq, HDx, HF-HD, and OL-HDF) included 13 patients. Naïve patients for each of the treatments were considered. Serum samples were collected at baseline and after 12–24–48 weeks from the enrollment. Intragroup comparison was performed using Friedman’s test whereas longitudinal data were compared using linear mixed models (LMMs). HDx showed a progressive improvement in the removal of urea (p = 0.043), λ -free light chains (p = 0.033), and transferrin saturation (p = 0.011) compared to other techniques. A nearly significant slope of β2 M was observed (p = 0.066). Also HFR-Aeq showed a near significant reduction in λ FLC values (p = 0.05) and a nearly significant increase in albumin levels (p = 0.07). HFR-Aeq provides uremic toxins removal comparable to other traditional techniques (HF-HD, OL-HDF). HDx confirmed its superiority in the removal of uremic toxins as urea and λ FLC and surprisingly enhanced TSAT by a possible anti-inflammatory effect not ascertained in the present study. The utilization of non-optimal convective volumes likely vanishes the promising findings of OL-HDF.

This dataset tracks the updates made on the dataset "Dialysis Facility Report Data for FY2008" as a repository for previous versions of the data and metadata.

This dataset tracks the updates made on the dataset "Dialysis Facility Report Data for FY2013" as a repository for previous versions of the data and metadata.

Introduction: Patients with chronic kidney disease present selenium (Se) plasma deficiency which is an essential trace element with important biological functions and, the best known biological role is attributed to its presence in the antioxidant enzyme, glutathione peroxidase (GPx). The Se content of foods depends on soil and some authors have suggested that Amazon soil (North Brazilian region) has high Se concentrations when compared to other regions of Brazil. Objective: The objective of this work was to compare the Se status in hemodialysis (HD) patients from North and Southeast of Brazil. Methods: Thirty-eight patients from Southeast region (22 men and 16 women, 15% diabetic, 53.5 ± 26.4 yrs) were compared to 40 patients from North region (28 men and 12 women, 22.5% diabetic, 63.5 ± 11.9 yrs). Se in plasma was determined through atomic absorption spectrophotometry with hydride generation. Results: The plasma Se levels in patients from Southeast region were significantly lower (17.5 ± 11.9 μg/L) when compared to patients from the North (37.1 ± 15.8 μg/L) (p < 0.001). However, both patient groups presented low Se plasma levels when compared to recommended values (60- 120 μg/L). There was no correlation between plasma Se levels and analyzed parameters. Conclusion: We concluded that patients from North (Amazon) region present higher plasma Se levels when compared to the patients from Southeast of Brazil. However, independently of the region, HD patients presented Se deficiency.