Dataset Information

Optimising transitions of care for acute kidney injury survivors: protocol for a mixed-methods study of nephrologist and primary care provider recommendations.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Acute kidney injury (AKI) affects nearly 20% of all hospitalised patients and is associated with poor outcomes. Long-term complications can be partially attributed to gaps in kidney-focused care and education during transitions. Building capacity across the healthcare spectrum by engaging a broad network of multidisciplinary providers to facilitate optimal follow-up care represents an important mechanism to address this existing care gap. Key participants include nephrologists and primary care providers and in-depth study of each specialty's approach to post-AKI care is essential to optimise care processes and healthcare delivery for AKI survivors.

Methods and analysis

This explanatory sequential mixed-methods study uses survey and interview methodology to assess nephrologist and primary care provider recommendations for post-AKI care, including KAMPS (kidney function assessment, awareness and education, medication review, blood pressure monitoring and sick day education) elements of follow-up, the role of multispecialty collaboration, and views on care process-specific and patient-specific factors influencing healthcare delivery. Nephrologists and primary care providers will be surveyed to assess recommendations and clinical decision-making in the context of post-AKI care. Descriptive statistics and the Pearson's χ² or Fisher's exact test will be used to compare results between groups. This will be followed by semistructured interviews to gather rich, qualitative data that explains and/or connects results from the quantitative survey. Both deductive analysis and inductive analysis will occur to identify and compare themes.

Ethics and dissemination

This study has been reviewed and deemed exempt by the Institutional Review Board at Mayo Clinic (IRB 20-0 08 793). The study was deemed exempt due to the sole use of survey and interview methodology. Results will be disseminated in presentations and manuscript form through peer-reviewed publication.

SUBMITTER: May HP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9226954 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPeer support complements traditional models of chronic kidney disease (CKD) care through sharing of peer experiences, pragmatic advice, and resources to enhance chronic kidney disease self-management and decision-making. As peer support is variably offered and integrated into multi-disciplinary CKD care, we aimed to characterize healthcare providers' experiences and views on peer support provision for people with non-dialysis-dependent CKD within Canada.MethodsIn this concurrent mixed methods study, we used a self-administered online survey to collect information from multi-disciplinary CKD clinic providers (e.g., nurses, nephrologists, allied health professionals) on peer support awareness, program characteristics and processes, perceived value, and barriers and facilitators to offering peer support in CKD clinics. Results were analyzed descriptively. We undertook semi-structured interviews with a sample of survey respondents to elaborate on perspectives about peer support in CKD care, which we analyzed using inductive, content analysis.ResultsWe surveyed 113 providers from 49 clinics. Two thirds (66%) were aware of formal peer support programs, of whom 19% offered in-house peer support through their clinic. Peer support awareness differed by role and region, and most referrals were made by social workers. Likert scale responses suggested a high perceived need of peer support for people with CKD. Top cited barriers to offering peer support included lack of peer support access and workload demands, while facilitators included systematic clinic processes for peer support integration and alignment with external programs. Across 18 interviews, we identified themes related to peer support awareness, logistics, and accessibility and highlighted a need for integrated support pathways.ConclusionsOur findings suggest variability in awareness and availability of peer support among Canadian multi-disciplinary CKD clinics. An understanding of the factors influencing peer support delivery will inform strategies to optimize its uptake for people with advanced CKD.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE) predicts risk of progression to kidney failure and is used to guide clinical decisions for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS:The KFRE was implemented to guide access to multidisciplinary care for CKD patients in Alberta, Canada, based on their 2-year risk of kidney failure. We used a mixed methods approach to investigate patients' and providers' perspectives and experiences 1 year following KFRE implementation. We conducted post-implementation interviews with multidisciplinary clinic providers and with low-risk patients who transitioned from multidisciplinary to general nephrology care. We also administered pre- and post-implementation patient care experience surveys, targeting both low-risk patients discharged to general nephrology and high-risk patients who remained in the multidisciplinary clinic, and provider job satisfaction surveys. RESULTS:Twenty-seven interviews were conducted (9 patients, 1 family member, 17 providers). Five categories were identified among patients and providers: targeted care; access to resources outside the multidisciplinary clinics; self-efficacy; patient reassurance and reduced stress; and transition process for low-risk patients Two additional categories were identified among providers only: anticipated concerns and job satisfaction. Patients and providers reported that the risk-based approach allowed the clinic to target care to those most likely to experience kidney failure and most likely to benefit from multidisciplinary care. While some participants indicated the risk-based model enhanced the sustainability of the clinics, others expressed concern that care for low-risk patients discharged from multidisciplinary care, or those now considered ineligible, may be inadequate. Overall, 413 patients completed the care experience survey and 73 providers completed the workplace satisfaction survey. The majority of patients were satisfied with their care in both periods with no overall differences. When considering the responses "Always" and "Often" together versus not, there were statistically significant improvements in domains of access to care, caring staff, and safety of care. There were no differences in healthcare providers' job satisfaction following KFRE implementation. CONCLUSIONS:Patients and healthcare providers reported that the risk-based approach improved the focus of the multidisciplinary CKD clinics by targeting patients at highest risk, with survey results suggesting no difference in patient care experience or healthcare provider job satisfaction.

Project description:BackgroundMost research on transitions of care has focused on the transition from acute to outpatient care. Little is known about the transition from outpatient to acute care. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on the transition from outpatient to acute care, focusing on provider-to-provider communication and its impact on quality of care.MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for English-language articles describing direct communication between outpatient providers and acute care providers around patients presenting to the emergency department or admitted to the hospital. We conducted double, independent review of titles, abstracts, and full text articles. Conflicts were resolved by consensus. Included articles were abstracted using standardized forms. We maintained search results via Refworks (ProQuest, Bethesda, MD). Risk of bias was assessed using a modified version of the Downs' and Black's tool.ResultsOf 4009 citations, twenty articles evaluated direct provider-to-provider communication around the outpatient to acute care transition. Most studies were cross-sectional (65%), conducted in the US (55%), and studied communication between primary care and inpatient providers (62%). Of three studies reporting on the association between communication and 30-day readmissions, none found a significant association; of these studies, only one reported a measure of association (adjusted OR for communication vs. no communication, 1.08; 95% CI 0.92-1.26).DiscussionThe literature on provider-to-provider communication at the transition from outpatient to acute care is sparse and heterogeneous. Given the known importance of communication for other transitions of care, future studies are needed on provider-to-provider communication during this transition. Studies evaluating ideal methods for communication to reduce medical errors, utilization, and optimize patient satisfaction at this transition are especially needed.

Project description:BackgroundBoth clinicians and patients have increasingly turned to telemedicine to improve care access, even in physical examination-dependent specialties such as dermatology. However, little is known about whether teledermatology supports effective and timely transitions from inpatient to outpatient care, which is a common care coordination gap.ObjectiveUsing mixed methods, this study sought to retrospectively evaluate how teledermatology affected clinic capacity, scheduling efficiency, and timeliness of follow-up care for patients transitioning from inpatient to outpatient dermatology care.MethodsPatient-level encounter scheduling data were used to compare the number and proportion of patients who were scheduled and received in-clinic or video dermatology follow-ups within 14 and 90 days after discharge across 3 phases: June to September 2019 (before teledermatology), June to September 2020 (early teledermatology), and February to May 2021 (sustained teledermatology). The time from discharge to scheduling and completion of patient follow-up visits for each care modality was also compared. Dermatology clinicians and schedulers were also interviewed between April and May 2021 to assess their perceptions of teledermatology for postdischarge patients.ResultsMore patients completed follow-up within 90 days after discharge during early (n=101) and sustained (n=100) teledermatology use than at baseline (n=74). Thus, the clinic's capacity to provide follow-up to patients transitioning from inpatient increased from baseline by 36% in the early (101 from 74) and sustained (100 from 74) teledermatology periods. During early teledermatology use, 61.4% (62/101) of the follow-ups were conducted via video. This decreased significantly to 47% (47/100) in the following year, when COVID-19-related restrictions started to lift (P=.04), indicating more targeted but still substantial use. The proportion of patients who were followed up within the recommended 14 days after discharge did not differ significantly between video and in-clinic visits during the early (33/62, 53% vs 15/39, 38%; P=.15) or sustained (26/53, 60% vs 28/47, 49%; P=.29) teledermatology periods. Interviewees agreed that teledermatology would continue to be offered. Most considered postdischarge follow-up patients to be ideal candidates for teledermatology as they had undergone a recent in-person assessment and might have difficulty attending in-clinic visits because of competing health priorities. Some reported patients needing technological support. Ultimately, most agreed that the choice of follow-up care modality should be the patient's own.ConclusionsTeledermatology could be an important tool for maintaining accessible, flexible, and convenient care for recently discharged patients needing follow-up care. Teledermatology increased clinic capacity, even during the pandemic, although the timeliness of care transitions did not improve. Ultimately, the care modality should be determined through communication with patients to incorporate their and their caregivers' preferences.

Project description:BackgroundIn-hospital dermatological care has shifted from dedicated dermatology wards to consultation services, and some consulted patients may require postdischarge follow-up in outpatient dermatology. Safe and timely care transitions from inpatient-to-outpatient specialty care are critical for patient health, but communication around these transitions can be disjointed, and workflows can be complex.ObjectiveIn this 3-phase quality improvement effort, we developed and evaluated an intervention that leveraged an electronic health record (EHR) feature, known as SmartPhrase, to enable a new workflow to improve transitions from inpatient care to outpatient dermatology.MethodsPhase 1 (February-March 2021) included interviews with patients and process mapping with key stakeholders to identify gaps and inform an intervention: a SmartPhrase table and associated workflow to promote collection of patient information needed for scheduling follow-up and closed-loop communication between dermatology and scheduling teams. In phase 2 (April-May 2021), semistructured interviews-with dermatologists (n=5), dermatology residents (n=5), and schedulers (n=6)-identified pain points and refinements. In phase 3, the intervention was evaluated by triangulating data from these interviews with measured changes in scheduling efficiency, visit completion, and messaging volume preimplementation (January-February 2021) and postimplementation (April-May 2021).ResultsPreintervention pain points included unclear workflow for care transitions, limited patient input in follow-up planning, multiple messaging channels (eg, EHR based, email, and phone messages), and time-inefficient patient tracking. The intervention addressed most pain points; interviewees reported the intervention was easy to adopt and improved scheduling efficiency, workload, and patient involvement. More visits were completed within the desired timeframe of 14 days after discharge during the postimplementation period (21/47, 45%) than the preimplementation period (28/41, 68%; P=.03). The messaging workload also decreased from 88 scheduling-related messages sent for 25 patients before implementation to 30 messages for 8 patients after implementation.ConclusionsInpatient-to-outpatient specialty care transitions are complex and involve multiple stakeholders, thus requiring multifaceted solutions. With deliberate evaluation, broad stakeholder input, and iteration, we designed and implemented a successful solution using a standard EHR feature, SmartPhrase, integrated into a standardized workflow to improve the timeliness of posthospital specialty care and reduce workload.

Project description:BackgroundIntensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing transitions in care are at increased risk of adverse events and gaps in medical care. We evaluated existing patient- and family-centered transitions in care tools and identified facilitators, barriers, and implementation considerations for the application of a transitions in care bundle in critically ill adults (i.e., a collection of evidence-based patient- and family-centred tools to improve outcomes during and after transitions from the intensive care unit [ICU] to hospital ward or community).MethodsWe conducted a concurrent mixed methods (quan + QUAL) study, including stakeholders with experience in ICU transitions in care (i.e., patient/family partners, researchers, decision-makers, providers, and other knowledge-users). First, participants scored existing transitions in care tools using the modified Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) framework. Transitions in care tools were discussed by stakeholders and either accepted, accepted with modifications, or rejected if consensus was achieved (≥70% agreement). We summarized quantitative results using frequencies and medians. Second, we conducted a qualitative analysis of participant discussions using grounded theory principles to elicit factors influencing AGREE-II scores, and to identify barriers, facilitators, and implementation considerations for the application of a transitions in care bundle.ResultsTwenty-nine stakeholders attended. Of 18 transitions in care tools evaluated, seven (39%) tools were accepted with modifications, one (6%) tool was rejected, and consensus was not reached for ten (55%) tools. Qualitative analysis found that participants' AGREE-II rankings were influenced by: 1) language (e.g., inclusive, balance of jargon and lay language); 2) if the tool was comprehensive (i.e., could stand alone); 3) if the tool could be individualized for each patient; 4) impact to clinical workflow; and 5) how the tool was presented (e.g., brochure, video). Participants discussed implementation considerations for a patient- and family-centered transitions in care bundle: 1) delivery (e.g., tool format and timing); 2) continuity (e.g., follow-up after ICU discharge); and 3) continuous evaluation and improvement (e.g., frequency of tool use). Participants discussed existing facilitators (e.g., collaboration and co-design) and barriers (e.g., health system capacity) that would impact application of a transitions in care bundle.ConclusionsFindings will inform future research to develop a transitions in care bundle for transitions from the ICU, co-designed with patients, families, providers, researchers, decision-makers, and knowledge-users.

Project description:BackgroundPredialysis nephrology care for adults with late stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with improved outcomes. Less is known about the effects of nephrology care in earlier stages of CKD.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the effect of nephrology care on management of CKD risk factors and complications, CKD progression, incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), and death.DesignThis was a prospective cohort study.ParticipantsParticipants included 3855 men and women aged 21 to 74 years enrolled in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study with a mean (SD) estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at entry of 45 (17) ml/min/1.73 m(2), followed for a median of 6.6 years.Main measuresThe main predictor was self-reported prior contact with a nephrologist at study enrollment. Outcomes evaluated included CKD progression (≥ 50 % eGFR loss or end-stage renal disease), incident CVD, and death.ResultsTwo-thirds (67 %) of the participants reported prior contact with a nephrologist at study enrollment. They were younger, more likely to be male, non-Hispanic white, and had lower eGFR and higher urine protein (p < 0.05). A subgroup with eGFR 30- < 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) and prior contact with a nephrologist were more likely to receive pharmacologic treatment for CKD-related complications and to report angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEi/ARB) use. After propensity score matching (for reporting prior contact with a nephrologist vs. not) and adjusting for demographic and clinical variables, prior contact with a nephrologist was not significantly associated with CKD progression, incident CVD or death (p > 0.05).ConclusionsOne-third of CRIC participants had not seen a nephrologist before enrollment, and this prior contact was subject to age, sex, and ethnic-related disparities. While prior nephrology care was associated with more frequent treatment of CKD complications and use of ACEi/ARB medications, there was neither an association between this care and achievement of guideline-recommended intermediate measures, nor long-term adverse outcomes.