Raquel C. Greer

Practical Approach to Detection and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease for the Primary Care Clinician

A panel of internists and nephrologists developed this practical approach for the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative to guide assessment and care of chronic kidney disease (CKD) by primary care clinicians. Chronic kidney disease is defined as a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and/or markers of kidney damage for at least 3 months. In clinical practice the most common tests for CKD include GFR estimated from the serum creatinine concentration (eGFR) and albuminuria from the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio. Assessment of eGFR and albuminuria should be performed for persons with diabetes and/or hypertension but is not recommended for the general population. Management of CKD includes reducing the patients risk of CKD progression and risk of associated complications, such as acute kidney injury and cardiovascular disease, anemia, and metabolic acidosis, as well as mineral and bone disorder. Prevention of CKD progression requires blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers for patients with albuminuria and hypertension, hemoglobin A1c ≤7% for patients with diabetes, and correction of CKD-associated metabolic acidosis. To reduce patient safety hazards from medications, the level of eGFR should be considered when prescribing, and nephrotoxins should be avoided, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The main reasons to refer to nephrology specialists are eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2), severe albuminuria, and acute kidney injury. The ultimate goal of CKD management is to prevent disease progression, minimize complications, and promote quality of life.

African American and Non-African American Patients’ and Families’ Decision Making About Renal Replacement Therapies

We conducted focus group meetings of African American and non-African American patients with end-stage renal disease (six groups) and their family members (six groups), stratified by race/ethnicity and treatment. We elicited differences in participants’ experiences with shared decision making about initiating renal replacement therapy (RRT; that is, hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, or a kidney transplant). Patients were often very sick when initiating RRT, and had little, if any, time to make a decision about what type of RRT to initiate. They also lacked sufficient information about alternative treatment options prior to initiation. Family members played supportive roles and shared in decision making when possible. Reports were similar for African American and non-African American participants. Our findings suggest that a greater emphasis on the improved engagement of patients and their families in shared decision making about RRT initiation is needed for both ethnic/racial minorities and nonminorities.

Selecting renal replacement therapies: what do African American and non-African American patients and their families think others should know? A mixed methods study

BackgroundLittle is known regarding the types of information African American and non-African American patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and their families need to inform renal replacement therapy (RRT) decisions.MethodsIn 20 structured group interviews, we elicited views of African American and non-African American patients with CKD and their families about factors that should be addressed in educational materials informing patients’ RRT selection decisions. We asked participants to select factors from a list and obtained their open-ended feedback.ResultsTen groups of patients (5 African American, 5 non-African American; total 68 individuals) and ten groups of family members (5 African American, 5 non-African American; total 62 individuals) participated. Patients and families had a range (none to extensive) of experiences with various RRTs. Patients identified morbidity or mortality, autonomy, treatment delivery, and symptoms as important factors to address. Family members identified similar factors but also cited the effects of RRT decisions on patients’ psychological well-being and finances. Views of African American and non-African American participants were largely similar.ConclusionsEducational resources addressing the influence of RRT selection on patients’ morbidity and mortality, autonomy, treatment delivery, and symptoms could help patients and their families select RRT options closely aligned with their values. Including information about the influence of RRT selection on patients’ personal relationships and finances could enhance resources’ cultural relevance for African Americans.

Development of a decision aid to inform patients’ and families’ renal replacement therapy selection decisions

BackgroundFew educational resources have been developed to inform patients’ renal replacement therapy (RRT) selection decisions. Patients progressing toward end stage renal disease (ESRD) must decide among multiple treatment options with varying characteristics. Complex information about treatments must be adequately conveyed to patients with different educational backgrounds and informational needs. Decisions about treatment options also require family input, as families often participate in patients’ treatment and support patients’ decisions. We describe the development, design, and preliminary evaluation of an informational, evidence-based, and patient-and family-centered decision aid for patients with ESRD and varying levels of health literacy, health numeracy, and cognitive function.MethodsWe designed a decision aid comprising a complementary video and informational handbook. We based our development process on data previously obtained from qualitative focus groups and systematic literature reviews. We simultaneously developed the video and handbook in “stages.” For the video, stages included (1) directed interviews with culturally appropriate patients and families and preliminary script development, (2) video production, and (3) screening the video with patients and their families. For the handbook, stages comprised (1) preliminary content design, (2) a mixed-methods pilot study among diverse patients to assess comprehension of handbook material, and (3) screening the handbook with patients and their families.ResultsThe video and handbook both addressed potential benefits and trade-offs of treatment selections. The 50-minute video consisted of demographically diverse patients and their families describing their positive and negative experiences with selecting a treatment option. The video also incorporated health professionals’ testimonials regarding various considerations that might influence patients’ and families’ treatment selections. The handbook was comprised of written words, pictures of patients and health care providers, and diagrams describing the findings and quality of scientific studies comparing treatments. The handbook text was written at a 4th to 6th grade reading level. Pilot study results demonstrated that a majority of patients could understand information presented in the handbook. Patient and families screening the nearly completed video and handbook reviewed the materials favorably.ConclusionsThis rigorously designed decision aid may help patients and families make informed decisions about their treatment options for RRT that are well aligned with their values.

The providing resources to enhance African American patients' readiness to make decisions about kidney disease (PREPARED) study: protocol of a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundLiving related kidney transplantation (LRT) is underutilized, particularly among African Americans. The effectiveness of informational and financial interventions to enhance informed decision-making among African Americans with end stage renal disease (ESRD) and improve rates of LRT is unknown.Methods/designWe report the protocol of the Providing Resources to Enhance African American Patients’ Readiness to Make Decisions about Kidney Disease (PREPARED) Study, a two-phase study utilizing qualitative and quantitative research methods to design and test the effectiveness of informational (focused on shared decision-making) and financial interventions to overcome barriers to pursuit of LRT among African American patients and their families. Study Phase I involved the evidence-based development of informational materials as well as a financial intervention to enhance African American patients’ and families’ proficiency in shared decision-making regarding LRT. In Study Phase 2, we are currently conducting a randomized controlled trial in which patients with new-onset ESRD receive 1) usual dialysis care by their nephrologists, 2) the informational intervention (educational video and handbook), or 3) the informational intervention in addition to the option of participating in a live kidney donor financial assistance program. The primary outcome of the randomized controlled trial will include patients’ self-reported rates of consideration of LRT (including family discussions of LRT, patient-physician discussions of LRT, and identification of a LRT donor).DiscussionResults from the PREPARED study will provide needed evidence on ways to enhance the decision to pursue LRT among African American patients with ESRD.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01439516

Specialist and primary care physicians’ views on barriers to adequate preparation of patients for renal replacement therapy: a qualitative study

BackgroundEarly preparation for renal replacement therapy (RRT) is recommended for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), yet many patients initiate RRT urgently and/or are inadequately prepared.MethodsWe conducted audio-recorded, qualitative, directed telephone interviews of nephrology health care providers (n = 10, nephrologists, physician assistants, and nurses) and primary care physicians (PCPs, n = 4) to identify modifiable challenges to optimal RRT preparation to inform future interventions. We recruited providers from public safety-net hospital-based and community-based nephrology and primary care practices. We asked providers open-ended questions to assess their perceived challenges and their views on the role of PCPs and nephrologist-PCP collaboration in patients’ RRT preparation. Two independent and trained abstractors coded transcribed audio-recorded interviews and identified major themes.ResultsNephrology providers identified several factors contributing to patients’ suboptimal RRT preparation, including health system resources (e.g., limited time for preparation, referral process delays, and poorly integrated nephrology and primary care), provider skills (e.g., their difficulty explaining CKD to patients), and patient attitudes and cultural differences (e.g., their poor understanding and acceptance of their CKD and its treatment options, their low perceived urgency for RRT preparation; their negative perceptions about RRT, lack of trust, or language differences). PCPs desired more involvement in preparation to ensure RRT transitions could be as “smooth as possible”, including providing patients with emotional support, helping patients weigh RRT options, and affirming nephrologist recommendations. Both nephrology providers and PCPs desired improved collaboration, including better information exchange and delineation of roles during the RRT preparation process.ConclusionsNephrology and primary care providers identified health system resources, provider skills, and patient attitudes and cultural differences as challenges to patients’ optimal RRT preparation. Interventions to improve these factors may improve patients’ preparation and initiation of optimal RRTs.

Setting an agenda for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews in CKD care

Systematic reviews comparing the effectiveness of strategies to prevent, detect, and treat chronic kidney disease are needed to inform patient care. We engaged stakeholders in the chronic kidney disease community to prioritize topics for future comparative effectiveness research systematic reviews. We developed a preliminary list of suggested topics and stakeholders refined and ranked topics based on their importance. Among 46 topics identified, stakeholders nominated 18 as ‘high’ priority. Most pertained to strategies to slow disease progression, including: (a) treat proteinuria, (b) improve access to care, (c) treat hypertension, (d) use health information technology, and (e) implement dietary strategies. Most (15 of 18) topics had been previously studied with two or more randomized controlled trials, indicating feasibility of rigorous systematic reviews. Chronic kidney disease topics rated by stakeholders as ‘high priority’ are varied in scope and may lead to quality systematic reviews impacting practice and policy.

Multimorbidity and Decision-Making Preferences Among Older Adults

PURPOSE Understanding individuals’ preferences for participating in health care decisions is foundational to delivering person-centered care. We aimed to (1) explore preferences for health care decision making among older adults, and (2) identify multimorbidity profiles associated with preferring less active, ie, passive, participation among older US adults. METHOD Ours was a cross-sectional, nationally representative study of 2,017 National Health and Aging Trends Study respondents. Passive decision-making preference was defined as preferring to leave decisions to physicians. Multimorbidity profiles, based on 13 prevalent chronic conditions, were examined as (1) presence of 2 or more conditions, (2) a simple conditions count, and (3) a condition clusters count. Multiple logistic regression was used with adjustment for age, sex, education, English proficiency, and mobility limitation. RESULTS Most older adults preferred to participate actively in making health care decisions. Older adults with 4 or more conditions, however, and those with multiple condition clusters are relatively less likely to prefer active decision making. CONCLUSIONS Primary care physicians should initiate a shared decision-making process with older adults with 4 or more conditions or multiple condition clusters. Physicians should anticipate variation in decision-making preferences among older adults and adapt a decision-making process that suits individuals’ preferences for participation to ensure person-centered care delivery.

Racial differences in acute kidney injury of hospitalized adults with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE To determine whether there is a racial difference in the risk of acute kidney injury between hospitalized black and white adults with diabetes mellitus in the United States RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We analyzed cross-sectional data from the 2000-2010 National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) to compare the odds of AKI among hospitalized black and white adults with diabetes. After excluding records in which race status was missing, race was other than white or black, discharge status was not provided, or end-stage renal disease was a diagnosis, we identified 276,138 eligible records for analysis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze the association between race, AKI, and in-hospital mortality. Multivariable linear regression was used to analyze the association between length of stay and race among discharge records with a diagnosis of AKI. RESULTS In this nationally representative sample of hospitalized U.S. adults with diabetes, blacks had a 50% higher age- and sex-adjusted odds of AKI compared to whites (odds ratio: 1.51; 95% CI 1.37-1.66). The association between black race and increased risk of AKI persisted after additional adjustment for multiple AKI-related risk factors, including chronic kidney disease, sepsis, hypertension, hypotension, length of stay, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, angiography, computed tomography scan, cirrhosis, admission source, payor source, hospital region, and hospital bed size (OR 1.71; 95% CI, 1.31-2.25). Among cases of AKI, there was no racial difference in length of stay or in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS Among hospitalized adults in the U.S. with diabetes, black race is associated with a higher risk of AKI compared to white race.

Minding the gap and overlap: a literature review of fragmentation of primary care for chronic dialysis patients

BackgroundCare coordination is a challenge for patients with kidney disease, who often see multiple providers to manage their associated complex chronic conditions. Much of the focus has been on primary care physician (PCP) and nephrologist collaboration in the early stages of chronic kidney disease, but less is known about the co-management of the patients in the end-stage of renal disease. We conducted a systematic review and synthesis of empirical studies on primary care services for dialysis patients.MethodsSystematic literature search of MEDLINE/PubMED, CINAHL, and EmBase databases for studies, published until August 2015. Inclusion criteria included publications in English, empirical studies involving human subjects (e.g., patients, physicians), conducted in US and Canadian study settings that evaluated primary care services in the dialysis patient population.ResultsFourteen articles examined three major themes of primary care services for dialysis patients: perceived roles of providers, estimated time in providing primary care, and the extent of dialysis patients’ use of primary care services. There was general agreement among providers that PCPs should be involved but time, appropriate roles, and miscommunication are potential barriers to good primary care for dialysis patients. Although many dialysis patients report having a PCP, the majority rely on primary care from their nephrologists. Studies using administrative data found lower rates of preventive care services than found in studies relying on provider or patient self-report.DiscussionThe extant literature revealed gaps and opportunities to optimize primary care services for dialysis patients, foreshadowing the challenges and promise of Accountable Care / End-Stage Seamless Care Organizations and care coordination programs currently underway in the United States to improve clinical and logistical complexities of care for this commonly overlooked population. Studies linking the relationship between providers and patients’ receipt of primary care to outcomes will serve as important comparisons to the nascent care models for ESRD patients, whose value is yet to be determined.