'Was my kidney biopsy worth it?'-A qualitative phenomenological study of patient experiences and perceived barriers to kidney biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Kidney biopsy is an important investigation in nephrology and facilitates the diagnosis of many conditions. It is an invasive procedure with the risk of significant complications, which limits its usage. There is minimal literature on how patients experience a kidney biopsy. Identifying and addressing barriers to access may expand opportunities for diagnosis and treatment. We hypothesise that patients experience kidney biopsy differently, depending on each individual's circumstances. METHODS: Ten participants, who had undergone a total of twenty-three kidney biopsies were recruited through purposive sampling. They were interviewed about how they experienced the procedure, how they felt it had impacted their own medical care and about potential barriers and facilitators to access for other patients. A descriptive phenomenological approach was utilised and thematic analysis was applied to responses. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged: Unforeseen health concerns discovered, resilience and re-evaluation and the need for a patient-centred approach to biopsy. The experience of pain and discomfort varied amongst patients, but there was a significant emotional and psychological toll associated with kidney biopsy. All patients felt that the procedure had a positive impact on their treatment course through increased diagnostic information for them and their healthcare team. Further information in advance and the presence of trusted healthcare staff were identified as facilitators to kidney biopsy. CONCLUSION: Kidney biopsy is experienced differently by patients. Improved information in advance by trusted healthcare professionals may reduce patient-related barriers to biopsy access.

Protocol for a systematic review of the application of the kidney failure risk equation and Oxford classification in estimating prognosis in IgA nephropathy.

BACKGROUND: IgA nephropathy (IgAN) is a common cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Outcomes are highly variable and predicting risk of disease progression at an individual level is challenging. Accurate risk stratification is important to identify individuals most likely to benefit from treatment. The Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE) has been extensively validated in CKD populations and predicts the risk of ESRD at 2 and 5 years using non-invasive tests; however, its predictive performance in IgAN is unknown. The Oxford classification (OC) describes pathological features demonstrated on renal biopsy that are associated with adverse clinical outcomes that may also inform prognosis. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the KFRE with the OC in determining prognosis in IgAN. METHODS: A systematic review will be conducted and reported in line with PRISMA guidelines (PRISMA-P checklist attached as Additional file 1). Inclusion criteria will be cohort studies that apply the KFRE or OC to determine the risk of CKD progression or ESRD in individuals with IgAN. Multiple databases will be searched in duplicate to identify relevant studies, which will be screened first by title, then by abstract and then by full-text analysis. Results will be collated for comparison. Risk of bias and confidence assessments will be conducted independently by two reviewers, with a third reviewer available if required. DISCUSSION: Identifying individuals at the highest risk of progression to ESRD is challenging in IgAN, due to the heterogeneity of clinical outcomes. Risk prediction tools have been developed to guide clinicians; however, it is imperative that these aids are accurate and reproducible. The OC is based on observations made by specialist renal pathologists and may be open to observer bias, therefore the utility of prediction models incorporating this classification may be diminished, particularly as in the future novel biomarkers may be incorporated into clinical practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022364569.

Detection of vertebral fracture in an acute hospital setting: an intervention to reduce future fracture risk through fracture liaison service intervention?

We introduced a standardised reporting system in the radiology department to highlight vertebral fractures and to signpost fracture prevention services. Our quality improvement project achieved improved fracture reporting, access to the FLS service, bone density assessment and anti-fracture treatment. PURPOSE: Identification of vertebral fragility fractures (VF) provides an opportunity to identify individuals at high risk who might benefit from secondary fracture prevention. We sought to standardise VF reporting and to signpost fracture prevention services. Our aim was to improve rates of VF detection and access to our fracture liaison service (FLS). METHODS: We introduced a standardised reporting tool within the radiology department to flag VFs with signposting for referral for bone densitometry (DXA) and osteoporosis assessment in line with Royal Osteoporosis Society guidelines. We monitored uptake of VF reporting during a quality improvement phase and case identification within the FLS service. RESULTS: Recruitment of individuals with VF to the FLS service increased from a baseline of 63 cases in 2017 (6%) to 95 (8%) in 2018 and 157 (8%) in 2019 and to 102 (12%) in the first 6 months of 2020 (p = 0.001). One hundred fifty-three patients with VFs were identified during the QI period (56 males; 97 females). Use of the terminology 'fracture' increased to 100% (mean age 70 years; SD 13) in computed tomography (n = 110), plain X-ray (n = 37) or magnetic resonance imaging (n = 6) reports within the cohort. Signposting to DXA and osteoporosis assessment was included in all reports (100%). DXA was arranged for 103/153; 12 failed to attend. Diagnostic categories were osteoporosis (31%), osteopenia (36%) or normal bone density (33%). A new prescription for bone protection therapy was issued in 63/153. Twelve of the series died during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Standardisation of radiology reporting systems facilitates reporting of prevalent vertebral fractures and supports secondary fracture prevention strategies.