Dataset Information

Impact of a chronic kidney disease registry and provider education on guideline adherence--a cluster randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Low adherence to chronic kidney disease (CKD) guidelines may be due to unrecognized CKD and lack of guideline awareness on the part of providers. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of provider education and access to a CKD registry on guideline adherence.

Methods

We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VAMC. One of two primary care clinics was randomized to intervention. Providers from both clinics received a lecture on CKD guidelines at study initiation. Providers in the intervention clinic were given access to and shown how to use a CKD registry, which identifies patients with CKD and is automatically updated daily. Eligible patients had at least one primary care visit in the last year, had CKD based on eGFR, and had not received renal replacement therapy. The primary outcome was parathyroid hormone (PTH) adherence, defined by at least one PTH measurement during the 12 month study. Secondary outcomes were measurement of phosphorus, hemoglobin, proteinuria, achievement of goal blood pressure, and treatment with a diuretic or renin-angiotensin system blocker.

Results

There were 418 and 363 eligible patients seen during the study in the control and intervention clinics, respectively. Compared to pre-intervention, measurement of PTH increased in both clinics (control clinic: 16% to 23%; intervention clinic: 13% to 28%). Patients in the intervention clinic were more likely to have a PTH measured during the study (adjusted odds ratio=1.53; 95% CI (1.01, 2.30); P=0.04). However, the intervention was not associated with a consistent improvement in secondary outcomes. Only 5 of the 37 providers in the intervention clinic accessed the registry.

Conclusions

An intervention that included education on CKD guidelines and access to a CKD patient registry marginally improved guideline adherence over education alone. Adherence to the primary process measure improved in both clinics, but no improvement was seen in intermediate clinical outcomes. Improving the care of patients with CKD will likely require a multifaceted approach including system redesign. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00921687.

SUBMITTER: Drawz PE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3556093 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) is common and is associated with excess mortality and morbidity. Better management could slow progression of disease, prevent metabolic complications, and reduce cardiovascular outcomes. Low patient awareness of CKD and ineffective patient-provider communication can impede such efforts. We developed provider and patient-directed interventions that harness health information technology to enhance provider recognition of CKD and delivery of guideline concordant care and augment patient understanding and engagement in CKD care.Methods/designWe report the design and protocol of the Kidney Awareness Registry and Education (KARE) Study, a 2x2 factorial randomized controlled trial that examines the impact of a multi-level intervention on health outcomes among low-income English, Spanish and Cantonese-speaking patients with CKD in a safety net system. The intervention includes: (1) implementation of a primary care electronic CKD registry that notifies practice teams of patients' CKD status and employs a patient profile and quarterly feedback to encourage provision of guideline-concordant care at point-of-care and via outreach; and (2) a language-concordant, culturally-sensitive self-management support program that consists of automated telephone modules, provision of low-literacy written patient-educational materials and telephone health coaching. The primary outcomes of the trial are changes in systolic blood pressure (BP) and the proportion of patients with BP control (≤ 140/90 mmHg) after one year. Secondary outcomes include patient understanding of CKD, participation in healthy behaviors, and practice team delivery of guideline-concordant CKD care.DiscussionResults from the KARE study will provide data on the feasibility, effectiveness, and acceptability of technology-based interventions that support primary care efforts at improving health outcomes among vulnerable patients with CKD.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, number: NCT01530958.

Project description:BackgroundAcute diarrhoeal disease management often requires rehydration alone without antibiotics. However, non-indicated antibiotics are frequently ordered and this is an important driver of antimicrobial resistance. The mHealth Diarrhoea Management (mHDM) trial aimed to establish whether electronic decision support improves rehydration and antibiotic guideline adherence in resource-limited settings.MethodsA cluster randomised controlled trial was done at ten district hospitals in Bangladesh. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 2 months or older with uncomplicated acute diarrhoea. Admission orders were observed without intervention in the pre-intervention period, followed by randomisation to electronic (rehydration calculator) or paper formatted WHO guidelines for the intervention period. The primary outcome was rate of intravenous fluid ordered as a binary variable. Generalised linear mixed-effect models, accounting for hospital clustering, served as the analytical framework; the analysis was intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03154229) and is completed.FindingsFrom March 11 to Sept 10, 2018, 4975 patients (75·6%) of 6577 screened patients were enrolled. The intervention effect for the primary outcome showed no significant differences in rates of intravenous fluids ordered as a function of decision-support type. Intravenous fluid orders decreased by 0·9 percentage points for paper electronic decision support and 4·2 percentage points for electronic decision support, with a 4·2-point difference between decision-support types in the intervention period (paper 98·7% [95% CI 91·8-99·8] vs electronic 94·5% [72·2-99·1]; pinteraction=0·31). Adverse events such as complications and mortality events were uncommon and could not be statistically estimated.InterpretationAlthough intravenous fluid orders did not change, electronic decision support was associated with increases in the volume of intravenous fluid ordered and decreases in antibiotics ordered, which are consistent with WHO guidelines.FundingUS National Institutes of Health.

Project description:Prescription opioid misuse is a significant public health problem as well as a patient safety concern. Primary care providers (PCPs) are the leading prescribers of opioids for chronic pain, yet few PCPs follow standard practice guidelines regarding assessment and monitoring. This cluster randomized controlled trial will determine whether four implementation strategies; nurse care management, use of a patient registry, academic detailing, and electronic tools, will increase PCP adherence to chronic opioid therapy guidelines and reduce opioid misuse among patients, relative to electronic tools alone. The implementation strategies and intervention content are based on the chronic care model.We include 53 PCPs from three Boston-area community health centers and one urban safety-net hospital-based primary care practice who have at least four patients meeting the following inclusion criteria: 1) age?18; 2) one or more completed visits to the primary care practice in the past year; 3) long-term opioid treatment defined as three or more opioid prescriptions written at least 21days apart within 6months and 4) an inpatient or outpatient ICD-9-CM diagnosis for musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain. We consider PCPs to be study subjects, and obtained a waiver of informed consent for patients because the study is promoting an established standard of care. We enrolled participants (PCPs) from December 2012 through March 2015. PCPs were randomized to receive the intervention, which includes four components: 1) nurse care management, 2) use of a patient registry, 3) academic detailing, and 4) electronic tools, or a control condition, which includes only the use of the electronic tools. The intervention PCPs receive the services of a nurse-managed registry for planning individual patient care and conducting population-based care for patients receiving opioids for chronic pain. In academic detailing visits, trained co-investigators provide intervention PCPs with individualized education to change prescribing practice. Electronic tools, located on a web site external to the EMR, www.mytopcare.org, include validated instruments to assess patient status, and management resources to facilitate PCP adherence to suggested monitoring. Electronic tools are available to PCPs in both study arms. The primary outcomes are PCP adherence to chronic opioid therapy guidelines and patient opioid misuse. Secondary outcomes include measures of substance abuse, possible opioid diversion, and level of opioid risk among patients. We will follow PCPs and their estimated 1200 chronic pain patients for 1year after study enrollment. To determine whether the intervention condition achieves greater adherence to guidelines and reduced opioid misuse after 1year compared to the control condition, we will compare the baseline and follow-up measures of the individual patients, stratifying by intervention status and noting differences that are statistically significant at the p=0.05 level. Analyses will be based on intent-to-treat.Randomization resulted in groups with similar baseline characteristics. The ages of PCPs are evenly distributed, with inclusion of both PCPs who have recently completed training and those who have been in practice for more than 20years. Two-thirds of enrolled PCPs are women, and one-third are non-white.The study will determine the impact of this multicomponent intervention on improving PCP adherence to guidelines and reducing opioid misuse among patients.

Project description:BackgroundPatients should receive follow-up serum creatinine tests after an initial abnormal result to diagnose chronic kidney disease. However, half of the time this fails to occur in primary care. We interviewed primary care providers to better understand their perceptions of enablers and barriers to following this guideline-recommended care.MethodsWe performed a qualitative descriptive study guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a framework for behavioural change. We used purposeful sampling to recruit primary care providers (physicians and nurse practitioners) based on provider and practice characteristics (rural, solo versus team practice, etc.) from Ontario, Canada. We completed one-on-one interviews with providers using a semi-structured and open-ended interview guide based on the 14 TDF domains. We alternated between data collection and analysis, where we used directed content analysis to identify frequent, important, and conflicting enablers and barriers.ResultsWe completed 13 interviews with nine primary care physicians and four nurse practitioners. Nine themes related to the TDF emerged from the data: 1) environmental context and resources, 2) knowledge, 3) memory, attention, and decision processes, 4) beliefs about consequences, 5) goals, 6) social or professional role, 7) behavioural regulation, 8) skills, and 9) optimism. Within these themes, we identified 16 enablers and five barriers. Some enablers included, providers' knowledge on appropriate testing, their motivation to order these tests, and their use of tools and resources to help order follow-up serum creatinine tests. However, providers perceived some barriers including that ordering confirmatory laboratory tests for chronic kidney disease was not always a priority in regards to other care they wish to provide. Providers also noted that a perceived barrier is patients not going to the laboratory to complete the test.ConclusionsWe identified novel enablers and barriers to primary care providers completing guideline recommended repeat testing for the diagnosis of chronic kidney disease. Similar research is needed to understand the views of patients. These research findings can be used to inform strategies to improve the quality of care.

Project description:BackgroundEnd-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is treated with dialysis or kidney transplantation, with most patients with ESKD receiving in-center hemodialysis treatment. This life-saving treatment can result in cardiovascular and hemodynamic instability, with the most common form being low blood pressure during the dialysis treatment (intradialytic hypotension [IDH]). IDH is a complication of hemodialysis that can involve symptoms such as fatigue, nausea, cramping, and loss of consciousness. IDH increases risks of cardiovascular disease and ultimately hospitalizations and mortality. Provider-level and patient-level decisions influence the occurrence of IDH; thus, IDH may be preventable in routine hemodialysis care.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the independent and comparative effectiveness of 2 interventions-one directed at hemodialysis providers and another for patients-in reducing the rate of IDH at hemodialysis facilities. In addition, the study will assess the effects of interventions on secondary patient-centered clinical outcomes and examine factors associated with a successful implementation of the interventions.MethodsThis study is a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial to be conducted in 20 hemodialysis facilities in the United States. Hemodialysis facilities will be randomized using a 2 × 2 factorial design, such that 5 sites will receive a multimodal provider education intervention, 5 sites will receive a patient activation intervention, 5 sites will receive both interventions, and 5 sites will receive none of the 2 interventions. The multimodal provider education intervention involved theory-informed team training and the use of a digital, tablet-based checklist to heighten attention to patient clinical factors associated with increased IDH risk. The patient activation intervention involves tablet-based, theory-informed patient education and peer mentoring. Patient outcomes will be monitored during a 12-week baseline period, followed by a 24-week intervention period and a 12-week postintervention follow-up period. The primary outcome of the study is the proportion of treatments with IDH, which will be aggregated at the facility level. Secondary outcomes include patient symptoms, fluid adherence, hemodialysis adherence, quality of life, hospitalizations, and mortality.ResultsThis study is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and approved by the University of Michigan Medical School's institutional review board. The study began enrolling patients in January 2023. Initial feasibility data will be available in May 2023. Data collection will conclude in November 2024.ConclusionsThe effects of provider and patient education on reducing the proportion of sessions with IDH and improving other patient-centered clinical outcomes will be evaluated, and the findings will be used to inform further improvements in patient care. Improving the stability of hemodialysis sessions is a critical concern for clinicians and patients with ESKD; the interventions targeted to providers and patients are predicted to lead to improvements in patient health and quality of life.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03171545; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03171545.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/46187.