Maoliosa Donald

Determining the research priorities for patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis

Background The importance of engaging key stakeholders, and patients in particular, in determining research priorities has been recognized. We sought to identify the top 10 research priorities for patients with non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD), their caregivers, and the clinicians and policy-makers involved in their care. Methods We used the four-step James Lind Alliance process to establish the top 10 research priorities. A national survey of patients with non-dialysis CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate <45 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), their caregivers, and the clinicians and policy-makers involved in their care was conducted to identify research uncertainties. A Steering Group of patients, caregivers, clinicians and researchers combined and reduced these uncertainties to 30 through a series of iterations. Finally, a workshop with participants from across Canada (12 patients, 6 caregivers, 3 physicians, 2 nurses, 1 pharmacist and 1 policy-maker) was held to determine the top 10 research priorities, using a nominal group technique. Results Overall, 439 individuals responded to the survey and identified 1811 uncertainties, from which the steering group determined the top 30 uncertainties to be considered at the workshop. The top 10 research uncertainties prioritized at the workshop included questions about treatments to prevent progression of kidney disease (including diet) and to treat symptoms of CKD, provider- and patient-targeted strategies for managing CKD, the impact of lifestyle on disease progression, harmful effects of medications on disease progression, optimal strategies for treatment of cardiovascular disease in CKD and for early identification of kidney disease, and strategies for equitable access to care for patients with CKD. Conclusions We identified the top 10 research priorities for patients with CKD that can be used to guide researchers, as well as inform funders of health-care research.

Online clinical pathway for managing adults with chronic kidney disease

Around one-tenth of the adults in Canada are affected by chronic kidney disease (CKD), which is defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2.1 Early recognition of CKD is important, since timely implementation of lifestyle and pharmacological interventions can prevent it or slow its progression.2-4 Such interventions can also reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD)5,6—the primary cause of death in these patients.7 However, patients with CKD are often not recognized and do not receive optimal treatment because of complexities in care and failure to disseminate best practices.8-10 The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD clinical practice guidelines provide evidence for the evaluation and management of CKD.11 While clinical practice guidelines summarize evidence and provide recommendations, they are often difficult to apply in routine daily clinical activities. Clinical pathways are often derived from clinical practice guidelines but differ by providing more explicit and practical information about the sequence, timing and provision of interventions.12 A clinical pathway can be an effective tool to increase uptake of evidence-based health care by pharmacists and other primary care professionals in the community, who care for the majority of patients with CKD.13-15 Pharmacists in Canada have an expanding scope of practice; pharmacists can order laboratory tests, adapt new prescriptions, perform therapeutic substitutions, issue prescriptions for continuity of care and prescribe in emergency situations.16 In Alberta, pharmacists who have Additional Prescribing Authorization can prescribe at initial access or manage ongoing therapy based on their own assessment or in collaboration with another regulated health care professional.17 An integral part of pharmacists’ practice is working collaboratively and communicating with physicians and other health care providers.17 As pharmacists’ expanded scope of practice develops,16 tools such as the CKD Clinical Pathway (Figure 1) can assist pharmacists to implement evidence-based guidelines into their daily practice. This manuscript provides an overview of the clinical pathway for diagnosis, management and referral of adults with CKD and its potential clinical use for pharmacists. Figure 1 Overview of the adult CKD Clinical Pathway Development of the adult CKD Clinical Pathway The CKD Clinical Pathway is an online tool/guideline modeled after the successful National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical pathways (http://pathways.nice.org.uk). It was developed by a team of stakeholders that included pharmacists, nephrologists, primary care physicians, nurses, other health care professionals, IT specialists, web developers and designers. Usability and heuristic testing with primary care professionals has been completed, and the CKD Clinical Pathway has been available online since November 4, 2014 (www.CKDpathway.ca). The content in the CKD Clinical Pathway is evidence based and uses international and national guidelines, including the KDIGO CKD guidelines,11 KDIGO Lipid guidelines,18 C-CHANGE,19 Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA) guidelines,20 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Lipid and Antiplatelet guidelines21,22 and Canadian Hypertension Education Program guidelines.23 This ensures that the recommendations are relevant and harmonized across Canada. Some of the content, such as the specialist referral form, is tailored to practice in Alberta. Users of the pathway should be aware that their local laboratory may report different reference ranges and units of measure than the laboratories in Alberta. Currently, laboratories in Alberta report estimated GFR using the CKD-EPI equation.24

A randomized controlled trial comparing in-person and wiki-inspired nominal group techniques for engaging stakeholders in chronic kidney disease research prioritization.

BackgroundFew studies have evaluated stakeholder engagement in chronic kidney disease (CKD) research prioritization. In this two-arm, parallel group randomized controlled trial, we sought to compare an in-person nominal group technique (NGT) approach with an online wiki-inspired alternative to determining the top 10 CKD research priorities, and to evaluate stakeholder engagement and satisfaction with each process.MethodsEligible participants included adults ≥18 years with access to a computer and Internet, high health literacy, and from one of the following stakeholder groups: patients with CKD not on dialysis, their caregivers, health care providers who care for patients with CKD, or CKD-related health policymakers. Fifty-six participants were randomized to a wiki-inspired modified NGT that occurred over 3 weeks vs. a 1-day in-person NGT workshop, informed by James Lind Alliance methodology, to determine the top 10 CKD-related research priorities. The primary outcome was the pairwise agreement between the two groups’ final top 10 ranked priorities, evaluated using Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Secondary outcomes included participant engagement and satisfaction and wiki tool usability.ResultsSpearman’s rho for correlation between the two lists was 0.139 (95 % confidence interval −0.543 to 0.703, p = 0.71), suggesting low correlation between the top 10 lists across the two groups. Both groups ranked the same item as the top research priority, with 5 of the top 10 priorities ranked by the wiki group within the top 10 for the in-person group. In comparison to the in-person group, participants from the wiki group were less likely to report: satisfaction with the format (73.7 vs.100 %, p = 0.011); ability to express their views (57.9 vs 96.0 %, p = 0.0003); and perception that they contributed meaningfully to the process (68.4 vs 84.0 %, p = 0.004).ConclusionsA CKD research prioritization approach using an online wiki-like tool identified low correlation in rankings compared with an in-person approach, with less satisfaction and perceptions of active engagement. Modifications to the wiki-inspired tool are required before it can be considered a potential alternative to an in-person workshop for engaging patients in determining research priorities.Trial registration(ISRCTN18248625)

Chronic disease management interventions for people with chronic kidney disease in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background Primary care providers manage the majority of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), although the most effective chronic disease management (CDM) strategies for these patients are unknown. We assessed the efficacy of CDM interventions used by primary care providers managing patients with CKD. Methods The Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central databases were systematically searched (inception to November 2014) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing education-based and computer-assisted CDM interventions targeting primary care providers managing patients with CKD in the community. The efficacy of CDM interventions was assessed using quality indicators [use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), proteinuria measurement and achievement of blood pressure (BP) targets] and clinical outcomes (change in BP and glomerular filtration rate). Two independent reviewers evaluated studies for inclusion, quality and extracted data. Random effects models were used to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences for outcomes of interest. Results Five studies (188 clinics; 494 physicians; 42 852 patients with CKD) were included. Two studies compared computer-assisted intervention strategies with usual care, two studies compared education-based intervention strategies with computer-assisted intervention strategies and one study compared both these intervention strategies with usual care. Compared with usual care, computer-assisted CDM interventions did not increase the likelihood of ACEI/ARB use among patients with CKD {pooled OR 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.21]; I2 = 0.0%}. Similarly, education-related CDM interventions did not increase the likelihood of ACEI/ARB use compared with computer-assisted CDM interventions [pooled OR 1.12 (95% CI 0.77-1.64); I2 = 0.0%]. Inconsistencies in reporting methods limited further pooling of data. Conclusions To date, there have been very few randomized trials testing CDM interventions targeting primary care providers with the goal of improving care of people with CKD. Those conducted to date have shown minimal impact, suggesting that other strategies, or multifaceted interventions, may be required to enhance care for patients with CKD in the community.

The use of magnetic resonance imaging in acute knee injuries can be reduced by non-physician expert clinics

Abstract Introduction. The routine use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the assessment of acute knee injuries is controversial. The goal of this study is to present an audit of patients seen in a dedicated Acute Knee Injury Clinic (AKIC) to determine the frequency and appropriateness of MRI utilization. Methods. A retrospective review identified all patients who had an MRI and a randomly selected control group without MRI. The MRI was classified based on whether it was ordered by the AKIC team or by an external clinician. The consensus-based ‘Indications for Urgent MRI in Acute Soft Tissue Knee Problems’ were applied to both groups. An MRI was considered appropriate if any of the indications were met. Results. The overall MRI utilization rate was 23% (142/611). Of the MRIs performed, 32% (46/142) met the indications. About 94% (33/35) of the MRIs ordered by the AKIC experts met the indications, compared to only 12% (13/107) of those ordered externally. No patients in the control group met the indications. Diagnoses were similar between groups. Discussion. These results suggest that application of guidelines by experts in knee evaluation can significantly reduce expensive MRI utilization in patients with acute knee injuries without negatively impacting the appropriate diagnosis and disposition.

Implementation and Evaluation of a Risk-Based Approach to Guide Chronic Kidney Disease Care: Protocol for a Multiphase Mixed-Methods Study:

Background: Risk prediction tools are used in a variety of clinical settings to guide patient care, although their use in chronic kidney disease (CKD) care is limited. Objectives: To assess the association of a risk-based model of CKD care on patient care, satisfaction, outcomes, and cost. Design: Mixed-methods with a pre-post design. Setting: We will use mixed-methods and a pre-post design to evaluate use of the Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE) to guide CKD care. The KFRE will be applied to patients currently followed in nephrology multidisciplinary CKD clinics in Alberta, as well as to new patients being considered for multidisciplinary care. Patients: Patients with a 2-year risk of kidney failure ≥10% or estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≤15 mL/min/1.73 m2 will be recommended care by a multidisciplinary team coordinated by a nurse clinician and nephrologist, with access to other multidisciplinary resources including dietitians, pharmacists, and social workers as required. Measurements/Methods: Focus groups and interviews will be conducted to qualitatively describe patient and provider perspectives of potential barriers and facilitators to implementation of the risk-based approach to CKD care. Patient and provider surveys will also be used to quantify patient and provider satisfaction before and after the intervention. Finally, administrative data will be used to evaluate the association between the risk-based approach to care and outcomes including health care resource use, frequency of testing, modality choice, and death. Conclusions: Use of a risk-based model of care has the potential to increase use of optimal treatments such as the use of home dialysis and preemptive kidney transplantation, while reducing costs and poor outcomes related to processes of care such as unnecessary laboratory testing; however, there is also potential for unintended consequences. Our mixed-methods approach will integrate perceptions and needs from key stakeholders (including patients with CKD, their families, and their providers) to guide implementation and ensure appropriate modifications.

Self-management interventions for adults with chronic kidney disease: a scoping review

Objective To systematically identify and describe self-management interventions for adult patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Setting Community-based. Participants Adults with CKD stages 1–5 (not requiring kidney replacement therapy). Interventions Self-management strategies for adults with CKD. Primary and secondary outcome measures Using a scoping review, electronic databases and grey literature were searched in October 2016 to identify self-management interventions for adults with CKD stages 1–5 (not requiring kidney replacement therapy). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, qualitative and mixed method studies were included and study selection and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. Outcomes included behaviours, cognitions, physiological measures, symptoms, health status and healthcare. Results Fifty studies (19 RCTs, 7 quasi-experimental, 5 observational, 13 pre-post intervention, 1 mixed method and 5 qualitative) reporting 45 interventions were included. The most common intervention topic was diet/nutrition and interventions were regularly delivered face to face. Interventions were administered by a variety of providers, with nursing professionals the most common health professional group. Cognitions (ie, changes in general CKD knowledge, perceived self-management and motivation) were the most frequently reported outcome domain that showed improvement. Less than 1% of the interventions were co-developed with patients and 20% were based on a theory or framework. Conclusions There was a wide range of self-management interventions with considerable variability in outcomes for adults with CKD. Major gaps in the literature include lack of patient engagement in the design of the interventions, with the majority of interventions not applying a behavioural change theory to inform their development. This work highlights the need to involve patients to co-developed and evaluate a self-management intervention based on sound theories and clinical evidence.

A scoping review of adult chronic kidney disease clinical pathways for primary care

Background Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects ∼10% of the adult population. The majority of patients with CKD are managed by primary care physicians, and despite the availability of effective treatment options, the use of evidence-based interventions for CKD in this setting remains suboptimal. Clinical pathways have been identified as effective tools to guide primary care physicians in providing evidence-based care. We aimed to describe the availability, characteristics and credibility of clinical pathways for adult CKD using a scoping review methodology. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL and targeted Internet sites from inception to 31 October 2014 to identify studies and resources that identified adult CKD clinical pathways for primary care settings. Study selection and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. Results From 487 citations, 41 items were eligible for review: 7 published articles and 34 grey literature resources published between 2001 and 2014. Of the 41 clinical pathways, 32, 24 and 22% were from the UK, USA and Canada, respectively. The majority (66%, n = 31) of clinical pathways were static in nature (did not have an online interactive feature). The majority (76%) of articles/resources reported using one or more clinical practice guidelines as a resource to guide the clinical pathway content. Few articles described a dissemination and evaluation plan for the clinical pathway, but most reported the targeted end-users. Conclusions Our scoping review synthesized available literature on CKD clinical pathways in the primary care setting. We found that existing clinical pathways are diverse in their design, content and implementation. These results can be used by researchers developing or testing new or existing clinical pathways and by practitioners and health system stakeholders who aim to implement CKD clinical pathways in clinical practice.

Perceived Benefits and Challenges of a Risk-Based Approach to Multidisciplinary Chronic Kidney Disease Care: A Qualitative Descriptive Study:

Background: The kidney failure risk equation (KFRE) provides an estimate of risk of progression to kidney failure, and may guide clinical care. Objective: We aimed to describe patient, family, and health care provider’s perspectives of the perceived benefits and challenges of using a risk-based approach to guide care delivery for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), and refine implementation based on their input. Methods: We used qualitative methodology to explore perceived benefits and challenges of implementing a risk-based approach (using the KFRE) to determine eligibility for multidisciplinary CKD care in Southern Alberta. We obtained perspectives from patients and families through focus groups, as well as input from health care providers through interviews and open-ended responses from an online survey. Twelve patients/family members participated in 2 focus groups, 16 health care providers participated in an interview, and 40 health care providers responded to the survey. Results: Overall, participants felt that a KFRE-based approach had the potential to improve efficiency of the clinics by targeting care to patients at highest risk of kidney failure; however, they also expressed concerns about the impact of loss of services for lower risk individuals. Participants also articulated concerns about a perceived lack of capacity for adequate CKD patient care in the community. Our implementation strategy was modified as a result of participants’ feedback. Conclusions: We identified benefits and challenges to implementation of a risk-based approach to guide care of patients with advanced CKD. Based on these results, our implementation strategy has been modified by removing the category of referral back to primary care alone, and instead having that decision made jointly by nephrologists and patients among low-risk patients.

Overview of Self-Management Resources Used by Canadian Chronic Kidney Disease Clinics: A National Survey:

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) clinics across Canada provide tailored care for patients with CKD with an aim to slow progression and prevent complications. These clinics provide CKD self-management resources; however, there is limited information about what resources are being used by clinics. We undertook a survey of CKD clinics across Canada to identify self-management resources for adults aged 18 years and over with CKD categories 1 to 5 and not requiring dialysis or transplant. Objective: To identify and collate self-management resources (eg, strategies, tools, educational materials) used by CKD clinics across Canada for adults with CKD (categories 1 to 5, not requiring kidney replacement therapy). Design: Self-administered, semistructured electronic survey. Setting, participants: Canadian CKD clinics with previously identified contact information. Methods and measurements: We contacted 57 CKD English-speaking clinics and invited them to complete an online survey. The survey was available from October 2016 to January 2017 and consisted of 17 questions regarding the use and attributes of self-management resources including topic, delivery format, provider, target population, where the intervention was provided, and resource languages. Results: Forty-four clinics (77%) completed the survey. The most common topic was modality education provided in print format, by nurses. The most frequently used resource was the Kidney Foundation of Canada (KFOC) Living With Kidney Disease manual. We also identified that the majority of resources were available in English, targeting both patients and caregivers in the outpatient setting. Limitations: Our survey included Canadian adult CKD clinics, which may not be generalizability to other settings, such as care of people with CKD in primary care. Conclusions: Adult CKD clinics across Canada provide some similar resources, but also provide many different self-management resources. Even though some of the same resources were used by multiple clinics, the way they were provided them (ie, provider, location, delivery format) varied by the individual clinics. Knowledge of self-management resources currently provided in CKD clinics, along with synthesis of the literature and patient preferred self-management strategies, will inform the design and development of a novel self-management intervention that is patient-centric and adheres to the principles of self-management.