The identification and management of depression in UK Kidney Care: Results from the Mood Maps Study.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common in people with chronic kidney disease, yet little is known about how depression is identified and managed as part of routine kidney care. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to survey all UK adult kidney centres to understand how depression is identified and managed. A secondary objective was to broadly describe the variability in psychosocial care. DESIGN: Online survey. METHODS: The survey comprised of three sections: (1) general kidney care, (2) psychological provision and (3) social work provision. RESULTS: 48/68 (71%) of centres responded to the general survey with 20 and 13 responses from psychological and social work module respectively. Only 31.4% reported having both in centre psychological and social work practitioners. Three centres reported no access to psychosocial provision. Of the 25 centres who reported on pathways, 36.0% reported having internal pathways for the identification and management of depression. Within services with psychological provision, screening for depression varied across modality/group (e.g., 7.1% in mild/moderate chronic kidney disease vs. 62.5% in kidney donors). Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy were the most common interventions offered. Most psychosocial services were aware of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for managing depression in long-term conditions (n = 18, 94.7%) yet few fully utilised (n = 6, 33.3%). Limited workforce capacity was evident. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variability in approaches taken to identify and treat depression across UK kidney services, with few services having specific pathways designed to detect and manage depression. Workforce capacity remains a significant issue.

Impact of COVID-19 on patient experience of kidney care: a rapid review.

INTRODUCTION: In March 2020, a pandemic state was declared due to SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19). Patients with kidney disease, especially those on replacement therapies, proved more susceptible to severe infection. This rapid literature review aims to help understand how the pandemic impacted patient experience of kidney care. METHODS: It was conducted in accordance with Cochrane Rapid Review interim guidance. Search terms, 'coronavirus', 'kidney care', and 'patient-reported experience' and terms with similar semantic meaning, identified 1,117 articles in Medline, Scopus, and Worldwide Science. Seventeen were included in the narrative synthesis. RESULTS: The findings were summarised into three themes: remote consultation and telemedicine (n = 9); psychosocial impact (n = 2); and patient satisfaction and patient-reported experience (n = 6). Patients were mostly satisfied with remote consultations, describing them as convenient and allowing avoidance of hospital visits. Anxieties included missing potentially important clinical findings due to lack of physical examination, poor digital literacy, and technical difficulties. Psychosocial impact differed between treatment modalities-transplant recipients expressing feelings of instability and dread of having to return to dialysis, and generally, were less satisfied, citing reduced ability to work and difficulty accessing medications. Those on home dialysis treatments tended to feel safer. Findings focused on aspects of patient experience of kidney care during the pandemic rather than a holistic view. CONCLUSIONS: There was little direct evaluation of modality differences and limited consideration of health inequalities in care experiences. A fuller understanding of these issues would guide policy agendas to support patient experience during future public health crises.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on services for patients with chronic kidney disease: findings of a national survey of UK kidney centres.

BACKGROUND: Services for patients with kidney disease underwent radical adaptations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We undertook an online national survey of UK kidney centres to understand the nature, range, and degree of variation in these changes and to explore factors contributing to differing practice. METHODS: The survey was designed by a multidisciplinary team of kidney professionals, service users and researchers. It enquired about centre services and staffing, including psychosocial provision, and changes to these in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Links to the survey were sent to all 68 UK kidney centres and remained active from December 2021 to April 2022, and a revised version to nurses in late 2022 for additional data. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Content analysis on free-text responses identified common themes. RESULTS: Analysable responses were received from 41 out of the 68 UK centres (60%), with partial data from an additional 7 (11%). Adaptations were system-wide and affected all aspects of service provision. Some changes were almost universal such as virtual consultations for outpatient appointments, with significant variation in others. Outpatient activity varied from fully maintained to suspended. Many centres reduced peritoneal dialysis access provision but in some this was increased. Centres considered that changes to transplant surgical services and for patients with advanced CKD approaching end-stage kidney disease had the greatest impact on patients. Few centres implemented adjustments aimed at vulnerable and underrepresented groups, including the frail elderly, people with language and communication needs, and those with mental health needs. Communication issues were attributed to rapid evolution of the pandemic, changing planning guidance and lack of resources. Staffing shortages, involving all staff groups particularly nurses, mainly due to COVID-19 infection and redeployment, were compounded by deficiencies in staffing establishments and high vacancy levels. Centres cited three main lessons influencing future service delivery, the need for service redesign, improvements in communication, and better support for staff. CONCLUSION: Kidney centre responses to the pandemic involved adaptations across the whole service. Though some changes were almost universal, there was wide variation in other areas. Exploring the role of centre characteristics may help planning for potential future severe service disruptions.

Ultra-Endurance Participation and Acute Kidney Injury: A Narrative Review.

Increasingly popular, ultra-endurance participation exposes athletes to extremely high levels of functional and structural damage. Ultra-endurance athletes commonly develop acute kidney injury (AKI) and other pathologies harmful to kidney health. There is strong evidence that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, common amongst ultra-athletes, is linked to increased risk and severity of AKI and potentially ischaemic renal injury, i.e., acute tubular necrosis. Ultra-endurance participation also increases the risk of exertional rhabdomyolysis, exercise-associated hyponatremia, and gastrointestinal symptoms, interlinked pathologies all with potential to increase the risk of AKI. Hydration and fuelling both also play a role with the development of multiple pathologies and ultimately AKI, highlighting the need for individualised nutritional and hydration plans to promote athlete health. Faster athletes, supplementing nitrates, and being female also increase the risk of developing AKI in this setting. Serum creatinine criteria do not provide the best indicator for AKI for ultra-athletes therefore further investigations are needed to assess the practicality and accuracy of new renal biomarkers such as neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL). The potential of recurring episodes of AKI provide need for further research to assess the longitudinal renal health impact of ultra-participation to provide appropriate advice to athletes, coaches, medical staff, and event organisers.

Nutritional and Non-Nutritional Strategies in Bodybuilding: Impact on Kidney Function.

Bodybuilders routinely engage in many dietary and other practices purported to be harmful to kidney health. The development of acute kidney injury, focal segmental glomerular sclerosis (FSGS) and nephrocalcinosis may be particular risks. There is little evidence that high-protein diets and moderate creatine supplementation pose risks to individuals with normal kidney function though long-term high protein intake in those with underlying impairment of kidney function is inadvisable. The links between anabolic androgenic steroid use and FSGS are stronger, and there are undoubted dangers of nephrocalcinosis in those taking high doses of vitamins A, D and E. Dehydrating practices, including diuretic misuse, and NSAID use also carry potential risks. It is difficult to predict the effects of multiple practices carried out in concert. Investigations into subclinical kidney damage associated with these practices have rarely been undertaken. Future research is warranted to identify the clinical and subclinical harm associated with individual practices and combinations to enable appropriate and timely advice.

Measuring patients' experience with renal services in the UK: development and validation of the Kidney PREM.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience is a recognized aspect of quality of care for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but current patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) only focus on dialysis care. We developed and validated the Kidney PREM to assess patients' experience with renal services in secondary care for any CKD stage or treatment (transplant, haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis). METHODS: We developed the Kidney PREM in two phases, informed by a multidisciplinary expert group to ensure face validity. We organized three national data collections (2016-8) to investigate item response profiles and to conduct exploratory and confirmatory analyses to assess internal consistency. We also explored content validity in cognitive interviews and evaluated test-retest reliability. Finally, we developed the Kidney PREM Short Form for more frequent measurement of patient experience to inform local service improvements. RESULTS: We analysed 32 959 responses across data collections, with the 2018 collection covering all 71 UK renal centres. The Kidney PREM final version consisted of 38 items grouped into 13 themes, all pertaining to one underlying dimension reflecting the construct of 'patient experience' with high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.94). The Kidney PREM Short Form consisted of 15 items across the same 13 themes. CONCLUSIONS: The Kidney PREM supports the collection of reliable information on patient experience that people with CKD consider relevant, regardless of CKD stage or treatment modality. Kidney PREM data have the potential to guide local and national initiatives to improve patients' experiences with renal services in the UK and other countries.

Contributions of treatment centre and patient characteristics to patient-reported experience of haemodialysis: a national cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relative importance of patient and centre level factors in determining self-reported experience of care in patients with advanced kidney disease treated by maintenance haemodialysis (HD). DESIGN: Analysis of data from a cross sectional national survey; the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) national Kidney patient-reported experience measure (PREM) survey (2018). Centre-level data were obtained from the UKRR report (2018). SETTING: National survey of patients with advanced kidney disease receiving treatment with maintenance HD in UK renal centres in 2018. PARTICIPANTS: The Kidney PREM was distributed to all UK renal centres by the UKRR in May 2018. Each centre invited patients receiving outpatient treatment for kidney disease to complete the PREM. These included patients with chronic kidney disease, those receiving dialysis-both HD and peritoneal dialysis, and those with a functioning kidney transplant. There were no formal inclusion/exclusion criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Kidney PREM has 38 questions in 13 subscales. Responses were captured using a 7-point Likert scale (never 1, always 7). The primary outcome of interest was the mean PREM score calculated across all questions. Multilevel modelling was used to determine the proportion of variation of the mean PREM score across centres due to patient-related and centre-related factors. RESULTS: There were records for 8253 HD patients (61% men, 77% white) from 69 renal centres (9-710 patients per centre). There was significant variation in mean PREM score across centres (5.35-6.53). In the multivariable analysis there was some variation in relation to both patient- and centre-level factors but these contributed little to explaining the overall variation. However, multilevel modelling showed that the overwhelming proportion of the explained variance (45%) was explained by variation between centres (40%), only a small proportion of which is identified by measured factors. Only 5% of the variation was related to patient-level factors. CONCLUSIONS: Centre rather than patient characteristics determine the experience of care of patients receiving HD. Further work is required to define the characteristics of the treating centre which determine patient experience.