Dataset Information

Population-based identification and temporal trend of children with primary nephrotic syndrome: The Kaiser Permanente nephrotic syndrome study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Limited population-based data exist about children with primary nephrotic syndrome (NS).

Methods

We identified a cohort of children with primary NS receiving care in Kaiser Permanente Northern California, an integrated healthcare delivery system caring for >750,000 children. We identified all children <18 years between 1996 and 2012 who had nephrotic range proteinuria (urine ACR>3500 mg/g, urine PCR>3.5 mg/mg, 24-hour urine protein>3500 mg or urine dipstick>300 mg/dL) in laboratory databases or a diagnosis of NS in electronic health records. Nephrologists reviewed health records for clinical presentation and laboratory and biopsy results to confirm primary NS.

Results

Among 365 cases of confirmed NS, 179 had confirmed primary NS attributed to presumed minimal change disease (MCD) (72%), focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) (23%) or membranous nephropathy (MN) (5%). The overall incidence of primary NS was 1.47 (95% Confidence Interval:1.27-1.70) per 100,000 person-years. Biopsy data were available in 40% of cases. Median age for patients with primary NS was 6.9 (interquartile range:3.7 to 12.9) years, 43% were female and 26% were white, 13% black, 17% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 32% Hispanic.

Conclusion

This population-based identification of children with primary NS leveraging electronic health records can provide a unique approach and platform for describing the natural history of NS and identifying determinants of outcomes in children with primary NS.

SUBMITTER: Parikh RV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8516311 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Kaiser Permanente model of integrated health delivery is highly regarded for high-quality and efficient health care. Efforts to reproduce Kaiser's success have mostly failed. One factor that has received little attention and that could explain Kaiser's advantage is its commitment to and investment in nursing as a key component of organizational culture and patient-centered care.PurposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the role of Kaiser's nursing organization in promoting quality of care.MethodologyThis was a cross-sectional analysis of linked secondary data from multiple sources, including a detailed survey of nurses, for 564 adult, general acute care hospitals from California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey in 2006-2007. We used logistic regression models to examine whether patient (mortality and failure-to-rescue) and nurse (burnout, job satisfaction, and intent-to-leave) outcomes in Kaiser hospitals were better than in non-Kaiser hospitals. We then assessed whether differences in nursing explained outcomes differences between Kaiser and other hospitals. Finally, we examined whether Kaiser hospitals compared favorably with hospitals known for having excellent nurse work environments-Magnet hospitals.FindingsPatient and nurse outcomes in Kaiser hospitals were significantly better compared with non-Magnet hospitals. Kaiser hospitals had significantly better nurse work environments, staffing levels, and more nurses with bachelor's degrees. Differences in nursing explained a significant proportion of the Kaiser outcomes advantage. Kaiser hospital outcomes were comparable with Magnet hospitals, where better outcomes have been largely explained by differences in nursing.ImplicationsAn important element in Kaiser's success is its investment in professional nursing, which may not be evident to systems seeking to achieve Kaiser's advantage. Our results suggest that a possible strategy for achieving outcomes like Kaiser may be for hospitals to consider Magnet designation, a proven and cost-effective strategy to improve process of care through investments in nursing.

Project description:BackgroundTo inform Danish health care reform efforts, we compared health care system inputs and performance and assessed the usefulness of these comparisons for informing policy.MethodsRetrospective analysis of secondary data in the Danish Health Care System (DHS) with 5.3 million citizens and the Kaiser Permanente integrated delivery system (KP) with 6.1 million members in California. We used secondary data to compare population characteristics, professional staff, delivery structure, utilisation and quality measures, and direct costs. We adjusted the cost data to increase comparability.ResultsA higher percentage of KP patients had chronic conditions than did patients in the DHS: 6.3% vs. 2.8% (diabetes) and 19% vs. 8.5% (hypertension), respectively. KP had fewer total physicians and staff compared to DHS, with 134 physicians/100,000 individuals versus 311 physicians/100,000 individuals. KP physicians are salaried employees; in contrast, DHS primary care physicians own and run their practices, remunerated by a mixture of capitation and fee-for-service payments, while most specialists are employed at largely public hospitals. Hospitalisation rates and lengths of stay (LOS) were lower in KP, with mean acute admission LOS of 3.9 days versus 6.0 days in the DHS, and, for stroke admissions, 4.2 days versus 23 days. Screening rates also differed: 93% of KP members with diabetes received retinal screening; only 46% of patients in the DHS with diabetes did. Per capita operating expenditures were PPP$1,951 (KP) and PPP $1,845 (DHS).ConclusionCompared to the DHS, KP had a population with more documented disease and higher operating costs, while employing fewer physicians and resources like hospital beds. Observed quality measures also appear higher in KP. However, simple comparisons between health care systems may have limited value without detailed information on mechanisms underlying differences or identifying translatable care improvement strategies. We suggest items for more in-depth analyses that could improve the interpretability of findings and help identify lessons that can be transferred.