Background Telenephrology has become an important health care delivery modality during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, little is known about patient perspectives on the quality of care provided via telenephrology compared to face-to-face visits. We aimed to use objective data to study patients’ perspectives on outpatient nephrology care received via telenephrology (phone and video) versus face-to-face visits. Methods We retrospectively studied adults who received care in the outpatient Nephrology & Hypertension division at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, from March to July 2020. We used a standardized survey methodology to evaluate patient satisfaction. The primary outcome was the percent of patients who responded with a score of good (4) or very good (5) on a 5-point Likert scale on survey questions that asked their perspectives on access to their nephrologist, relationship with care provider, their opinions on the telenephrology technology, and their overall assessment of the care received. Wilcoxon rank sum tests and chi-square tests were used as appropriate to compare telenephrology versus face-to-face visits. Results 3,486 of the patient encounters were face-to-face, 808 phone and 317 video visits. 443 patients responded to satisfaction surveys, and 21% of these had telenephrology encounters. Established patients made up 79.6% of telenephrology visits and 60.9% of face-to-face visits. There was no significant difference in patient perceived access to health care, satisfaction with their care provider, or overall quality of care between patients cared for via telenephrology versus face-to-face. Patient satisfaction was also equally high. Conclusions Patient satisfaction was equally high amongst those patients seen face-to-face or via telenephrology.

Background and objectives: Despite the dramatic increase in provision of virtual nephrology care, only anecdotal reports of outcomes without comparators to usual care exist in the literature. This study aimed to provide objective determination of clinical non-inferiority of hybrid care (telenephrology plus face-to-face) versus standard care (face-to-face) inpatient nephrology care. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study compares objective outcomes in patients who received inpatient hybrid care versus standard nephrology care at two Mayo Clinic Health System community hospitals. Outcomes were then additionally compared to those patients receiving care at another Mayo Clinic Health System site where only standard care is available. Hospitalized adults who had nephrology consults from 3/1/2020 to 2/28/2021 were considered. Regression was used to assess 30-day mortality, length of hospitalization, readmissions, odds of being prescribed dialysis, and hospital transfers. Sensitivity analysis was performed using patients who had ≥50% of their care encounters via telenephrology. Structured surveys were used to understand the perspectives of non-nephrology hospital providers and telenephrologists. Results: 850 patients were included. Measured outcomes that included the number of hospital transfers (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.37 - 3.82), 30-day readmissions (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 - 1.06, among others, did not differ significantly between controls and cases in the general cohort. Telenephrologists (n=11) preferred video consults (82%) to phone for communication. More than half (64%) of telenephrologists spent less time on telenephrology compared to standard care. Non-nephrology hospital providers (n=21) were very satisfied (48%) and satisfied (29%) with telenephrology response time, and felt telenephrology was as safe as standard care (67%) while providing them enough information to make patient care decisions (76%). Conclusions: Outcomes for in-hospital nephrology consults were not significantly different comparing hybrid care versus standard care. Non-nephrology hospital providers and telenephrologists had favorable opinions of telenephrology and most perceived it is as safe and effective as standard care.

Peritoneal–mediastinal communication is a rare complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD). We report the first case of peritoneal–mediastinal communication complication in a 36‐year‐old Caucasian man on continuous cycler peritoneal dialysis (CCPD) after undergoing cardiac surgery. He developed end‐stage kidney disease (ESKD) due to calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity and BK virus nephropathy in the setting of prior heart transplantation. He was initially started on intermittent hemodialysis (iHD) and was switched to CCPD 1 year later. He presented with increased drainage from his sternal incision site and reduced ultrafiltration. A contrast‐enhanced chest computed tomography scan revealed an anterior chest wall subcutaneous fluid collection. He was found to have a peritoneal–mediastinal communication intraoperatively. He was successfully managed with “low‐volume” PD by using reduced fill volumes for all his exchanges and did not require transition to iHD. He also had no vascular access options because of multiple prior thromboses, which would have made transitioning to iHD not feasible. This case further highlights the complex management of an ESKD patient who cannot do iHD and only do low‐volume PD because of a surgical complication and the need for a multidisciplinary approach to ensure appropriate patient care.