LABORATORY DATABASE POPULATION SURVEILLANCE TO IMPROVE DETECTION OF PROGRESSIVE CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE

A stepped wedge cluster randomized trial of graphical surveillance of kidney function data to reduce late presentation for kidney replacement therapy

Late presentation for kidney replacement therapy (KRT) is an important cause of avoidable morbidity and mortality. Here, we evaluated the effect of a complex intervention of graphical estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) surveillance across 15% of the United Kingdom population on the rate of late presentation using data routinely collected by the United Kingdom Renal Registry. A stepped wedge cluster randomized trial was established across 19 sites with eGFR graphs generated from all routine blood tests (community and hospital) across the population served by each site. Graphs were reviewed by trained laboratory or clinical staff and high-risk graphs reported to family doctors. Due to delays outside the control of clinicians and researchers few laboratories activated the intervention in their randomly assigned time period, so the trial was converted to a quasi-experimental design. We studied 6,100 kidney failure events at 20 laboratories served by 17 main kidney units. A total of 63,981 graphs were sent out. After adjustment for calendar time there was no significant reduction in the rate of presentation during the intervention period. Therefore, implementation of eGFR graph surveillance did not reduce the rate of late presentation for KRT after adjustment for secular trends. Thus, graphical surveillance is an intervention aimed at reducing late presentation, but more evidence is required before adoption of this strategy can be recommended.

Quality improvement at scale: evaluation of the drivers and barriers to adoption and sustainability of an intervention to reduce late referral in chronic kidney disease

This quality improvement project aimed to drive large scale and sustained change to reduce the burden of chronic kidney disease in the UK. The intervention is a software program that extracts relevant biochemical data from laboratory databases which then generate graphs of estimated kidney function (eGFR) over time. Graphs showing progressive kidney disease are sent directly back to general practitioners (GPs) to alert them to rereview patient care and if necessary, refer to renal services. The aim of this evaluation study was to explain the barriers and drivers to implementation and adoption of the eGFR graph intervention. This evaluation study involved 5 of the 20 participating renal units (sites). A developmental evaluation approach was used. Methods included collection of descriptive data about graph reporting; GP surveys (n=68); focus groups (n=4) with practices; face-to-face interviews with secondary care clinicians (n=10). Results showed the mean number of graphs reviewed per week per site was 230, taking 1 hour per week per site. Only 18.2% graphs highlighted a concerning decline in kidney function. Important enablers to sustain the intervention were low cost, easy to understand, a sense of local ownership and perceived impact. Barriers included nephrologists’ perceived increase in new referrals. We concluded that developmental evaluation can explain the barriers/drivers to implementation of a national quality improvement project that involves a variety of different stakeholders. The intervention has the potential to slow down progression of kidney disease due to the eGFR prompts alerting GPs to review the patient record and take action, such as reviewing medications and referring to renal teams if progressive kidney disease had not been identified previously.

Using chronic kidney disease trigger tools for safety and learning: a qualitative evaluation in East London primary care

BACKGROUND

An innovative programme to improve identification and management of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care was implemented across three clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in 2016. This included a falling estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) trigger tool built from data in the electronic health record (EHR). This tool notifies GP practices of falling eGFR values. By alerting clinicians to patients with possible CKD progression the tool invites clinical review, a referral option, and written reflection on management.

AIM

To identify practitioner perceptions of trigger tool use from interviews, and compare these with reflections on clinical management recorded within the tools.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A qualitative analysis set in 136 practices across East London during 2016-2018.

METHOD

Eight semi-structured interviews with GPs and practice staff were recorded, and thematic analysis was undertaken using framework analysis. The reflective comments recorded in the trigger tools of 1921 cases were categorised by age group, referral status, and by the drop in eGFR (>15 or >25 ml/min).

RESULTS

Three themes emerged from the interviews: getting started, patient safety, and trigger tools for learning. Well-organised practices found the tool was readily embedded into workflow and expressed greater motivation for using it. The tool was seen to support patient safety, and was used for learning about CKD management, both individually and as a practice. Reflective comments from 1921 trigger tools were reviewed. These supported the theme of patient safety. The free-text data, stratified by age, challenged the expectation that younger cases, at higher risk of progressive CKD, would have higher referral rates.

CONCLUSION

Building electronic trigger tools from the EHR can identify patients with a falling eGFR, prompting review of the eGFR trajectory and management plan. Interview and reflective data illustrated that practice use of the tool supports the patient safety agenda and encourages learning about CKD management.

A programme to spread eGFR graph surveillance for the early identification, support and treatment of people with progressive chronic kidney disease (ASSIST-CKD): protocol for the stepped wedge implementation and evaluation of an intervention to reduce late presentation for renal replacement therapy

Background

Patients who start renal replacement therapy (RRT) for End-Stage Kidney Disease (ESKD) without having had timely access to specialist renal services have poor outcomes. At one NHS Trust in England, a community-wide CKD management system has led to a decline in the incident rate of RRT and the lowest percentage of patients presenting within 90 days of starting RRT in the UK. We describe the protocol for a quality improvement project to scale up and evaluate this innovation.

Methods

The intervention is based upon an off-line database that integrates laboratory results from blood samples taken in all settings stored under different identifying labels relating to the same patient. Graphs of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over time are generated for patients <65 years with an incoming eGFR <50 ml/min/1.73 m² and patients >65 years with an incoming eGFR <40 ml/min/1.73 m². Graphs where kidney function is deteriorating are flagged by a laboratory scientist and details sent to the primary care doctor (GP) with a prompt that further action may be needed.

We will evaluate the impact of implementing this intervention across a large population served by a number of UK renal centres using a mixed methods approach. We are following a stepped-wedge design. The order of implementation among participating centres will be randomly allocated. Implementation will proceed with unidirectional steps from control group to intervention group until all centres are generating graphs of eGFR over time.

The primary outcome for the quantitative evaluation is the proportion of patients referred to specialist renal services within 90 days of commencing RRT, using data collected routinely by the UK Renal Registry. The qualitative evaluation will investigate facilitators and barriers to adoption and spread of the intervention. It will include: semi-structured interviews with laboratory staff, renal centre staff and service commissioners; an online survey of GPs receiving the intervention; and focus groups of primary care staff.

Discussion

Late presentation to nephrology for patients with ESKD is a source of potentially avoidable harm. This protocol describes a robust quantitative and qualitative evaluation of a quality improvement intervention to reduce late presentation and improve the outcomes for patients with ESKD.

Effect of ethnicity and socioeconomic status on vascular access provision and performance in an urban NHS hospital

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of ethnicity, socioeconomic group (SEG) and comorbidities on provision of vascular access for haemodialysis (HD).

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of two databases of HD sessions and access operations from 2003-11. Access modality of first HD session and details of transplanted patients were derived from the renal database. Follow-up was until 1 January 2015. Primary failure (PF) was defined as an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) used for fewer than six consecutive dialysis sessions. AVF survival was defined as being until the date the AVF was abandoned. Ethnicity was coded from hospital records. SEG was calculated from postcodes and 2011 census data from the Office of National Statistics. Comorbidities were calculated with the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

RESULTS

Five hundred incident patients started chronic HD in the study period. Mode of starting HD was not associated with ethnicity (P = 0.27) or SEG (P = 0.45). Patients from ethnic minorities were younger when starting dialysis (P < 0.0001). Some 928 AVF patients' first AVF operations were analysed: 68% Caucasian, 26% Asian and 6% Afro-Caribbean. Half were in the most deprived SEG and 11% in the least deprived SEG. PF did not differ by ethnicity (P = 0.29), SEG (P = 0.75) or comorbidities (P = 0.54). AVF survival was not different according to ethnicity (P = 0.13) or SEG (P = 0.87). AVF survival was better for patients with a low comorbidity score (P = 0.04). The distribution of transplant recipients by ethnic group and SEG was similar to the distributions of all HD starters.

CONCLUSION

Ethnicity and socioeconomic group had no effect on mode of starting HD, primary AVF failure rate or AVF survival. Ethnic minorities were younger at start of dialysis and at their first AVF operation.

The Cornish experience of the ASSIST-CKD project

Introduction

The ASSIST-CKD project is a national quality improvement programme, aiming to decrease the number of patients presenting late to renal services by enabling laboratories to review up to five years of estimated glomerular filtration rate results graphically and report deteriorating patients to their general practitioner.

Aim

To assess the impact of the project on the laboratory, and of patient reporting on general practitioner management and the local renal service.

Method

Each week two searches were performed (Search A: maximum age 65 years, maximum eGFR 50 ml/min/1.73 m2 and Search B: Age 66–120 years, maximum eGFR 40 ml/min/1.73 m2) on patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate requested by their general practitioner within the previous seven days. Patients showing deterioration in estimated glomerular filtration rate had a printed graph sent to their general practitioner. Feedback on the graphs and their impact on patient management were obtained from the general practitioners via a questionnaire.

Results

A median of 37 patients/week were listed for review for Search A, with 32% reported; and Search B a median of 227 patients/week listed, 32% reported. General practitioner surgery questionnaires (29) showed the reports were well received. Of general practitioners responding to the questionnaire, 67% had reviewed a patient earlier than intended, 54% had reviewed local guidance, 48% had emailed the renal team and 48% had referred a patient on receipt of a graph; 34% had shown a graph to their patients, of whom 70% found that useful.

Conclusion

There is some evidence that ASSIST-CKD reporting has enhanced patient care; however, further long-term assessment is still required.

Improving CKD Diagnosis and Blood Pressure Control in Primary Care: A Tailored Multifaceted Quality Improvement Programme

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a worldwide public health issue. From 2009 to 2014, the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Greater Manchester (NIHR CLAHRC GM) in England ran 4 phased, 12-month quality improvement (QI) projects with 49 primary care practices in GM. Two measureable aims were set - halve undiagnosed CKD in participating practices using modelled estimates of prevalence; and optimise blood pressure (BP) control (<140/90 mm Hg in CKD patients without proteinuria; <130/80 mm Hg in CKD patients with proteinuria) for 75% of recorded cases of CKD. The 4 projects ran as follows: P1 = Project 1 with 19 practices (September 2009 to September 2010), P2 = Project 2 with 11 practices (March 2011 to March 2012), P3 = Project 3 with 12 practices (September 2012 to October 2013), and P4 = Project 4 with 7 practices (April 2013 to March 2014).

METHODS

Multifaceted intervention approaches were tailored based on a contextual analysis of practice support needs. Data were collected from practices by facilitators at baseline and again at project close, with self-reported data regularly requested from practices throughout the projects.

RESULTS

Halving undiagnosed CKD as per aim was exceeded in 3 of the 4 projects. The optimising BP aim was met in 2 projects. Total CKD cases after the programme increased by 2,347 (27%) from baseline to 10,968 in a total adult population (aged ≥18 years) of 231,568. The percentage of patients who managed to appropriate BP targets increased from 34 to 74% (P1), from 60 to 83% (P2), from 68 to 71% (P3), and from 63 to 76% (P4). In nonproteinuric CKD patients, 88, 90, 89, and 91%, respectively, achieved a target BP of <140/90 mm Hg. In proteinuric CKD patients, 69, 46, 48, and 45%, respectively, achieved a tighter target of <130/80 mm Hg. Analysis of national data over similar timeframes indicated that practices participating in the programme achieved higher CKD detection rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Participating practices identified large numbers of "missing" CKD patients with comparator data showing they outperformed non-QI practices locally and nationally over similar timeframes. Improved BP control also occurred through this intervention, but overall achievement of the tighter BP target in proteinuric patients was notably less.

GPs' views on managing advanced chronic kidney disease in primary care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has become a significant part of the GP's workload since the introduction of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines in 2008. Patients with advanced CKD (stages G4 and G5) often have comorbidities, varied disease progression, and are likely to be older. GPs may experience difficulties with management decisions for patients with advanced CKD, including when to refer to nephrology.

AIM

To explore GPs' views of managing patients with advanced CKD and referral to secondary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative study with GPs in four areas of England: London, Bristol, Birmingham, and Stevenage.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews with 19 GPs. Transcribed interviews were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

GPs had little experience of managing patients with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis or having conservative care (treatment without dialysis or a transplant), and welcomed guidance. Some GPs referred patients based on renal function alone and some used wider criteria including age and multimorbidity. GPs reported a tension between national guidance and local advice, and some had learnt from experience that patients were discharged back to primary care. GPs with more experience of managing CKD referred patients later, or sometimes not at all, if there were no additional problems and if dialysis was seen as not in the patient's interests.

CONCLUSION

GPs want guidance on managing older patients with advanced CKD and comorbidities, which better incorporates agreement between local and national recommendations to clarify referral criteria. GPs are not generally aware of conservative care programmes provided by renal units, however, they appear happy to contribute to such care or alternatively, lead conservative management with input from renal teams.

A national study of practice patterns in UK renal units in the use of dialysis and conservative kidney management to treat people aged 75 years and over with chronic kidney failure

Background

Conservative kidney management (CKM) is recognised as an alternative to dialysis for a significant number of older adults with multimorbid stage 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD5). However, little is known about the way CKM is delivered or how it is perceived.

Aim

To determine the practice patterns for the CKM of older patients with CKD5, to inform service development and future research.

Objectives

(1) To describe the differences between renal units in the extent and nature of CKM, (2) to explore how decisions are made about treatment options for older patients with CKD5, (3) to explore clinicians’ willingness to randomise patients with CKD5 to CKM versus dialysis, (4) to describe the interface between renal units and primary care in managing CKD5 and (5) to identify the resources involved and potential costs of CKM.

Methods

Mixed-methods study. Interviews with 42 patients aged > 75 years with CKD5 and 60 renal unit staff in a purposive sample of nine UK renal units. Interviews informed the design of a survey to assess CKM practice, sent to all 71 UK units. Nineteen general practitioners (GPs) were interviewed concerning the referral of CKD patients to secondary care. We sought laboratory data on new CKD5 patients aged > 75 years to link with the nine renal units’ records to assess referral patterns.

Results

Sixty-seven of 71 renal units completed the survey. Although terminology varied, there was general acceptance of the role of CKM. Only 52% of units were able to quantify the number of CKM patients. A wide range reflected varied interpretation of the designation ‘CKM’ by both staff and patients. It is used to characterise a future treatment option as well as non-dialysis care for end-stage kidney failure (i.e. a disease state equivalent to being on dialysis). The number of patients in the latter group on CKM was relatively small (median 8, interquartile range 4.5–22). Patients’ expectations of CKM and dialysis were strongly influenced by renal staff. In a minority of units, CKM was not discussed. When discussed, often only limited information about illness progression was provided. Staff wanted more research into the relative benefits of CKM versus dialysis. There was almost universal support for an observational methodology and a quarter would definitely be willing to participate in a randomised clinical trial, indicating that clinicians placed value on high-quality evidence to inform decision-making. Linked data indicated that most CKD5 patients were known to renal units. GPs expressed a need for guidance on when to refer older multimorbid patients with CKD5 to nephrology care. There was large variation in the scale and model of CKM delivery. In most, the CKM service was integrated within the service for all non-renal replacement therapy CKD5 patients. A few units provided dedicated CKM clinics and some had dedicated, modest funding for CKM.

Conclusions

Conservative kidney management is accepted across UK renal units but there is much variation in the way it is described and delivered. For best practice, and for CKM to be developed and systematised across all renal units in the UK, we recommend (1) a standard definition and terminology for CKM, (2) research to measure the relative benefits of CKM and dialysis and (3) development of evidence-based staff training and patient education interventions.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.