Dataset Information

Impact of Using Risk-Based Stratification on Referral of Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease From Primary Care to Specialist Care in the United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The externally validated Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE) for predicting risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) has been developed, but its potential impact in a population on referrals for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) from primary to specialty nephrology care is not known.

Methods

A cross-sectional population-based study of individuals in United Kingdom primary care registered in The Health Improvement Network database was conducted. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2014 CKD guidelines versus the 4-variable KFRE set at a >3% risk of ESRD at 5 years were applied to patients identified with CKD stage 3-5 between January 1, 2016, and March 31, 2017.

Results

In all, 39,476 (36.6%) of 107,962 adults with CKD stage 3-5 had a urine albumin:creatinine ratio (ACR) available and entered into the primary analysis. Of that, 7566 (19.2%) patients fulfilled NICE criteria for referral, 2386 (31.5%) of whom had a ≤3% 5-year risk of ESRD. Also 8663 (21.9%) patients had a >3% 5-year risk of ESRD, 3483 (40.2%) of whom did not fulfill NICE criteria; this represents 8.8% of the primary population. By using the KFRE threshold rather than NICE criteria for referral, 5869 patients (14.9% of the primary analysis population) would have been reallocated between primary and specialist care. Imputational analysis was used for missing ACR measurements and showed similar results.

Conclusions

A risk-based referral approach would lead to a substantial reallocation of patients between primary care and specialist nephrology care with only a small increase in numbers eligible, ensuring those at higher risk of progression are identified.

SUBMITTER: Bhachu HK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8343777 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common; therefore, coordination of care between primary care and nephrology is important. Ontario Renal Network's KidneyWise toolkit was developed to provide guidance on the detection and management of people with CKD in primary care (www.kidneywise.ca). The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the April 2015 KidneyWise toolkit release on the characteristics of primary care referrals to nephrology. DESIGN AND SETTING:The study was a prospective pre-post design conducted at two nephrology sites (community site: Trillium Health Partners in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, and academic site: St Joseph's Healthcare in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada). Referrals were compared during the 3-month time period immediately prior to, and during a 3-month period 1?year after, the toolkit release. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was the change in proportion of referrals for CKD that met the KidneyWise criteria. Additional secondary referral and quality of care outcomes were also evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate preselected variables for their independent association with referrals that met the KidneyWise criteria. RESULTS:The proportion of referrals for CKD among people who met the KidneyWise referral criteria did not significantly change from pre-KidneyWise to post-KidneyWise implementation (44.7% vs 45.8%, respectively, adjusted OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.59, p=0.36). The proportion of referrals for CKD that provided a urine albumin-creatinine ratio significantly increased post-KidneyWise (25.8% vs 43.8%, adjusted OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.97, p=0.02). The significant independent predictors of meeting the KidneyWise referral criteria were academic site, increased age and use of the KidneyWise referral form. CONCLUSIONS:We did not observe any change in the proportion of appropriate referrals for CKD at two large nephrology centres 1?year after implementation of the KidneyWise toolkit.

Project description:AimsTo estimate whether opioid substitution treatment (OST) with buprenorphine or methadone is associated with a greater reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality (ACM) and opioid drug-related poisoning (DRP) mortality.DesignCohort study with linkage between clinical records from Clinical Practice Research Datalink and mortality register.SettingUK primary care.ParticipantsA total of 11?033 opioid-dependent patients who received OST from 1998 to 2014, followed-up for 30?410 person-years.MeasurementsExposure to methadone (17?373, 61%) OST episodes or buprenorphine (9173, 39%) OST episodes. ACM was available for all patients; information on cause of death and DRP was available for 5935 patients (54%) followed-up for 16?363 person-years. Poisson regression modelled mortality by treatment period with an interaction between OST type and treatment period (first 4 weeks on OST, rest of time off OST, first 4 weeks off OST, rest of time out of OST censored at 12 months) to test whether ACM or DRP differed between methadone and buprenorphine. Inverse probability weights were included to adjust for confounding and balance characteristics of patients prescribed methadone or buprenorphine.FindingsACM and DRP rates were 1.93 and 0.53 per 100 person-years, respectively. DRP was elevated during the first 4 weeks of OST [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.93 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.97-3.82], the first 4 weeks off OST (IRR = 8.15, 95% CI = 5.45-12.19) and the rest of time out of OST (IRR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.47-3.09) compared with mortality risk from 4 weeks to end of treatment. Patients on buprenorphine compared with methadone had lower ACM rates in each treatment period. After adjustment, there was evidence of a lower DRP risk for patients on buprenorphine compared with methadone at treatment initiation (IRR = 0.08, 95% CI = 0.01-0.48) and rest of time on treatment (IRR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.17-0.79). Treatment duration (mean and median) was shorter on buprenorphine than methadone (173 and 40 versus 363 and 111, respectively). Model estimates suggest that there was a low probability that methadone or buprenorphine reduced the number of DRP in the population: 28 and 21%, respectively.ConclusionsIn UK general medical practice, opioid substitution treatment with buprenorphine is associated with a lower risk of all-cause and drug-related poisoning mortality than methadone. In the population, buprenorphine is unlikely to give greater overall protection because of the relatively shorter duration of treatment.

Project description:BackgroundInnovations are proliferating at the primary-secondary care interface, affecting referral to secondary care and resource use. Evidence about the range of effects and implications for the healthcare system of different types of innovation have not previously been summarised.AimTo review the available evidence on initiatives affecting primary care referral to specialist secondary care.SettingStudies of primary-secondary care interface.MethodSystematic review of trials, using adapted Cochrane Collaboration (effective practice and organisation of care) criteria. Studies from 1980 to 2001 were identified from a wide range of sources. Strict inclusion criteria were applied, and relevant clinical, service and cost data extracted using an agreed protocol. The main outcome measures were referral rates to specialist secondary care.ResultsOf the 139 studies initially identified. 34 met the review criteria. An updated search added a further 10 studies. Two studies provided economic analysis only. Referral was not the primary outcome of interest in the majority of included studies. Professional interventions generally had an impact on referral rates consistent with the intended change in clinician behaviour. Similarly, specialist 'outreach' or other primary care-based specialist provider schemes had at least a small effect upon referral rates to secondary care with the direction of effect being that intended or rational from a clinical and sociological perspective. Of the financial interventions, one was aimed primarily at changing the numbers or proportion of referrals from primary to specialist secondary care, and the direction of change was as expected in all cases. The quality of the reporting of the economic components of the 14 studies giving economic data was poor in many cases. When grouped by intervention type, no overall pattern of change in referral costs or total costs emerged.ConclusionThe studies identified were extremely diverse in methodology, clinical subject, organisational form, and quality of evidence. The number of good quality evaluations of innovative schemes to enhance the existing capacity of primary care was small, but increasing. Well-evaluated service initiatives in this area should be supported. Organisational innovations in the structure of service provision need not increase total costs to the National Health Service (NHS), even though costs associated with referral may increase. This review provides limited, partial, and conditional support for current primary care-oriented NHS policy developments in the United Kingdom.