#2121 The Kidney-specific Psychosocial ASSessment and support (Kidney PASSPORT) feasibility trial

Abstract Background and Aims Psychosocial interventions for depressive and anxiety symptoms are effective in CKD, but studies mainly focus on people on dialysis. Little is known about the role of screening and prevention of common mental health difficulties in early CKD. This trial assessed the research feasibility of an intervention to screen for psychological distress in CKD and deliver prevention approaches for sub-threshold symptoms. The intervention was facilitated by an Assistant Wellbeing Practitioner (AWP), a Band 3 healthcare assistant familiar with renal services and upskilled with specific competency-based training. Method We conducted a mixed-methods, one-year, single-centre, prospective, single-blind, wait-list, randomised controlled feasibility trial. We anticipated screening 250 individuals to identify 100 eligible, with a 40% screening positivity rate, a 45% participation rate and 20% attrition rate, to give 36 participants in the feasibility study. Primary outcomes are shown in Table 1. Potential participants were screened using an online self-completion questionnaire. Participants were randomised to 6 months of immediate or wait-list intervention. Data was collected using online self-report surveys, clinical research forms and semi-structured qualitative interviews. The trial was overseen by a steering committee and received the relevant ethics approvals. Funders included Kidney Care UK, the British Renal Society, the Royal Devon and Exeter Research Capacity Awards and the Exeter Kidney Unit development fund. Results We approached n = 233 people. Feasibility outcomes are shown in Table 2. Due to logistical issues an extension was obtained and in total n = 24 participants were recruited, agreed by the steering committee. All clinical research forms were completed. The most common intervention components were self-management and liaison with the clinical team. The median (interquartile range) difference in baseline and post intervention PHQ-9 score was −5 (−7, 0), n = 19, p = 0.003) and GAD-7 score was −7 (−8, −2), n = 19, p = 0.0002). Qualitative findings showed the AWP was seen as filling in the gaps left by other parts of the service. Key themes were accessibility, time availability, empathy, patient empowerment, and ability to empower the individual. Balance—especially family, work and health—was noted to be a challenge for participants. Importantly, the AWP was able to help participants overcome previous negative experiences. The trial provided valuable learning regarding role implementation, including recruitment, training, work patterns, everyday practicalities, and supervision arrangements. Conclusion We propose a novel intervention for screening and addressing early mental health problems in people with CKD. A single-centre feasibility design was appropriate. The screening positivity rate was lower than anticipated, informing samples for future trials. Outcome data collection via self-report surveys was not feasible. The intervention was well received, with the AWP being valued and self-help and clinical liaison being core elements. Significant reductions in depression and anxiety screening scores were observed. Despite the rigorous design, limitations included slow initial recruitment impacting the sample size and AWP role vulnerability. Future work includes adapting the AWP training and role based on trial learning and considering suitability for other long-term conditions. In conclusion, the AWP role shows promise in routine screening for and prevention of common mental health difficulties in CKD.