Patients' Perspectives on Race and the Use of Race-Based Algorithms in Clinical Decision-Making: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical algorithms that incorporate race as a modifying factor to guide clinical decision-making have recently been criticized for propagating racial bias in medicine. Equations used to calculate lung or kidney function are examples of clinical algorithms that have different diagnostic parameters depending on an individual's race. While these clinical measures have multiple implications for clinical care, patients' awareness of and their perspectives on the application of such algorithms are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine patients' perspectives on race and the use of race-based algorithms in clinical decision-making. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three adult patients recruited at a safety-net hospital in Boston, MA. APPROACH: Interviews were analyzed using thematic content analysis and modified grounded theory. KEY RESULTS: Among the 23 study participants, 11 were women and 15 self-identified as Black or African American. Three categories of themes emerged: The first theme described definitions and the individual meanings participants ascribed to the term race. The second theme described perspectives on the role and consideration of race in clinical decision-making. Most study participants were unaware that race has been used as a modifying factor in clinical equations and rejected the incorporation of race in these equations. The third theme related to exposure to and experience of racism in healthcare settings. Experiences described by non-White participants ranged from microaggressions to overt acts of racism, including perceived racist encounters with healthcare providers. In addition, patients alluded to a deep mistrust in the healthcare system as a major barrier to equitable care. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that most patients are unaware of how race has been used to make risk assessments and guide clinical care. Further research on patients' perspectives is needed to inform the development of anti-racist policies and regulatory agendas as we move forward to combat systemic racism in medicine.

Association of Public Reporting of Medicare Dialysis Facility Quality Ratings With Access to Kidney Transplantation.

Importance: Improving the quality of dialysis care and access to kidney transplantation for patients with end-stage kidney disease is a national clinical and policy priority. The role of dialysis facility quality in increasing access to kidney transplantation is not known. Objective: To determine whether patient, facility, and kidney transplant waitlisting characteristics are associated with variations in dialysis center quality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study is an analysis of US Renal Data System data and Medicare Dialysis Facility Compare (DFC) data from 2013 to 2018. Participants included all adult (aged ≥18 years) patients in the US Renal Data System beginning long-term dialysis in the US from 2013 to 2017 with follow-up through the end of 2018. Patients with a prior kidney transplant and matched Medicare DFC star ratings to each annual cohort of recipients were excluded. Patients at facilities without a star rating in that year were also excluded. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2021. Exposures: Dialysis center quality, as defined by Medicare DFC star ratings. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients undergoing incident dialysis who were waitlisted within 1 year of dialysis initiation. Secondary outcomes were patient and facility characteristics. Results: Of 507 581 patients beginning long-term dialysis in the US from 2013 to 2017, 291 802 (57.4%) were male, 266 517 (52.5%) were White, and the median (interquartile range) age was 65 (55-75) years. Of 5869 dialysis facilities in 2017, 132 (2.2%) were 1-star, 436 (7.4%) were 2-star, 2047 (34.9%) were 3-star, 1660 (28.3%) were 4-star, and 1594 (27.2%) were 5-star. Higher-quality dialysis facilities were associated with 47% higher odds of transplant waitlisting (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.39-1.57 for 5-star facilities vs 1-star facilities; P < .001). Black patients were less likely than White patients to be waitlisted for transplantation (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.72-0.76). In addition, patients at for-profit (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.81) and rural (OR, 0.63; 95%, CI 0.58-0.68) facilities were less likely to be waitlisted for transplantation compared with those at nonprofit and urban facilities, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients at higher-quality dialysis facilities had higher odds than patients at lower-quality facilities of being waitlisted for kidney transplantation within 1 year. Waitlisting rates for kidney transplantation should be considered for integration into the current Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services DFC star ratings to incentivize dialysis facility referral to transplant centers, inform patient choice, and drive quality improvement by increasing transplant waitlisting rates.

Assessment of Interobserver Reliability of Nephrologist Examination of Urine Sediment.

Importance: Urine sediment microscopy is commonly performed during the evaluation of kidney disease. Interobserver reliability of nephrologists' urine sediment examination has not been well studied. Objective: Assess interobserver reliability of the urine sediment examination. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic test study, urine samples were prospectively collected from a convenience sample of adult patients from an academic hospital in the United States undergoing kidney biopsy from July 11, 2018, to March 20, 2019. Digital images and videos of urine sediment findings were captured using a bright-field microscope. These images and videos along with urine dipstick results were incorporated in online surveys and sent to expert nephrologists at 15 US teaching hospitals. They were asked to identify individual sediment findings and the most likely underlying disease process. Exposures: Urine dipstick results and urine sediment images from patients undergoing native kidney biopsy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Interobserver reliability of urine sediment microscopy findings estimated by overall percent agreement and Fleiss κ coefficients. Secondary outcomes included concordance of diagnoses suspected by nephrologists with corresponding kidney biopsy results. Results: In total, 10 surveys from 10 patients containing 76 study questions on individual features were sent to 21 nephrologists, 14 (67%) of whom completed them all. Their combined 1064 responses were analyzed. Overall percent agreement for casts was an estimated 59% (95% CI, 50%-69%), κ = 0.52 (95% CI, 0.42-0.62). For other sediment findings, overall percent agreement was an estimated 69% (95% CI, 61%-77%), κ = 0.65 (95% CI, 0.56-0.73). The κ estimates ranged from 0.13 (95% CI, 0.10-0.17) for mixed cellular casts to 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.94) for squamous epithelial cells. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, substantial variability occurred in the interpretation of urine sediment findings, even among expert nephrologists. Educational or technological innovations may help improve the urine sediment as a diagnostic tool.

Development of an electronic health record-based chronic kidney disease registry to promote population health management.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) based chronic kidney disease (CKD) registries are central to population health strategies to improve CKD care. In 2015, Partners Healthcare System (PHS), encompassing multiple academic and community hospitals and outpatient care facilities in Massachusetts, developed an EHR-based CKD registry to identify opportunities for quality improvement, defined as improvement on both process measures and outcomes measures associated with clinical care. METHODS: Patients are included in the registry based on the following criteria: 1) two estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) results < 60 ml/min/1.73m2 separated by 90 days, including the most recent eGFR being < 60 ml/min/1.73m2; or 2) the most recent two urine protein values > 300 mg protein/g creatinine on either urine total protein/creatinine ratio or urine albumin/creatinine ratio; or 3) an EHR problem list diagnosis of end stage renal disease (ESRD). The registry categorizes patients by CKD stage and includes rates of annual testing for eGFR and proteinuria, blood pressure control, use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), nephrotoxic medication use, hepatitis B virus (HBV) immunization, vascular access placement, transplant status, CKD progression risk; number of outpatient nephrology visits, and hospitalizations. RESULTS: The CKD registry includes 60,503 patients and has revealed several opportunities for care improvement including 1) annual proteinuria testing performed for 17% (stage 3) and 31% (stage 4) of patients; 2) ACE-I/ARB used in 41% (stage 3) and 46% (stage 4) of patients; 3) nephrotoxic medications used among 23% of stage 4 patients; and 4) 89% of stage 4 patients lack HBV immunity. For advanced CKD patients there are opportunities to improve vascular access placement, transplant referrals and outpatient nephrology contact. CONCLUSIONS: A CKD registry can identify modifiable care gaps across the spectrum of CKD care and enable population health strategy implementation. No linkage to Social Security Death Master File or US Renal Data System (USRDS) databases limits our ability to track mortality and progression to ESRD.

Kidney Disease Population Health Management in the Era of Accountable Care: A Conceptual Framework for Optimizing Care Across the CKD Spectrum.

Since its passage in 2010, the Affordable Care Act has led to the creation of numerous accountable care organizations that face the challenge of transforming the traditional care delivery model to provide more patient-centered, high-quality, and low-cost care. Complex patients, including those with chronic kidney disease (CKD), present the most challenges and opportunities. CKD is a condition with significant morbidity, mortality, and cost and thought to be partly secondary to known gaps in care delivery. Successful population management for CKD requires consideration of the needs of patients at all phases of the disease. In this article, we offer a comprehensive framework for a population-based approach to CKD and examples of programs we are implementing in each area. These initiatives include the development and implementation of an electronic nephrology consult (e-consult) platform, CKD quality metrics, CKD registry, CKD collaborative care agreement, multidisciplinary care clinic for advanced CKD, end-stage renal disease care coordinator program, shared decision-making tools for renal replacement, CKD education videos, and a tablet-based CKD patient-reported outcome measures tool.

Clinical predictors of diagnostic testing utility in the initial evaluation of chronic kidney disease.

AIM: No evidence-based approach to the evaluation of CKD has been established. We sought to identify clinical criteria to guide a rational diagnostic approach for the initial evaluation of CKD. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1487 patients presenting for initial evaluation of CKD over 3 years (1/2010-1/2013) to academic nephrology clinics. We utilized the electronic medical record to determine tests ordered, abnormal results and testing that affected diagnosis and/or management. Diagnostic and management yield of testing was defined as the percentage of tests that affected diagnosis and/or management. High yield for a given test was defined as an increased likelihood of the test affecting diagnosis and/or management. RESULTS: We identified clinical criteria predictive of high yield for paraprotein-related testing (one of the following: history of monoclonal disease, high risk of CKD progression, hypercalcemia or haemoglobin < 10.6), and clinical criteria predictive of high yield for glomerulonephritis testing (one of the following: abnormal urine sediment, 3+ or greater hematuria or proteinuria > 500 mg/gm). A prior history of hydronephrosis and renal artery stenosis was predictive of high yield of abnormal renal ultrasound. Higher yield of testing was associated with higher risk progression categories for ANA, SPEP, urine sediment, calcium, PTH, haemoglobin, iron and ferritin. We estimate that initial CKD evaluation costs range from $28 to $109 million/year in US-Medicare expenditure. CONCLUSION: Numerous tests without significant clinical utility are obtained in initial CKD evaluation. Identifying criteria that can guide diagnostic testing may lead to a more informed and cost-effective approach to evaluation.

Nephrology co-management versus primary care solo management for early chronic kidney disease: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians (PCPs) typically manage early chronic kidney disease (CKD), but recent guidelines recommend nephrology co-management for some patients with stage 3 CKD and all patients with stage 4 CKD. We sought to compare quality of care for co-managed patients to solo managed patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis. Patients included in the study were adults who visited a PCP during 2009 with laboratory evidence of CKD in the preceding two years, defined as two estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) between 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m(2) separated by 90 days. We assessed process measures (serum eGFR test, urine protein/albumin test, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker [ACE/ARB] prescription, and several tests monitoring for complications) and intermediate clinical outcomes (mean blood pressure and blood pressure control) and performed subgroup analyses by CKD stage. RESULTS: Of 3118 patients, 11 % were co-managed by a nephrologist. Co-management was associated with younger age (69 vs. 74 years), male gender (46 % vs. 34 %), minority race/ethnicity (black 32 % vs. 22 %; Hispanic 13 % vs. 8 %), hypertension (75 % vs. 66 %), diabetes (42 % vs. 26 %), and more PCP visits (5.0 vs. 3.9; p < 0.001 for all comparisons). After adjustment, co-management was associated with serum eGFR test (98 % vs. 94 %, p = <0.0001), urine protein/albumin test (82 % vs 36 %, p < 0.0001), and ACE/ARB prescription (77 % vs. 69 %, p = 0.03). Co-management was associated with monitoring for anemia and metabolic bone disease, but was not associated with lipid monitoring, differences in mean blood pressure (133/69 mmHg vs. 131/70 mmHg, p > 0.50) or blood pressure control. A subgroup analysis of Stage 4 CKD patients did not show a significant association between co-management and ACE/ARB prescription (80 % vs. 73 %, p = 0.26). CONCLUSION: For stage 3 and 4 CKD patients, nephrology co-management was associated with increased stage-appropriate monitoring and ACE/ARB prescribing, but not improved blood pressure control.

Incidence, outcomes, and comparisons across definitions of AKI in hospitalized individuals.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: At least four definitions of AKI have recently been proposed. This study sought to characterize the epidemiology of AKI according to the most recent consensus definition proposed by the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Work Group, and to compare it with three other definitions. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 31,970 hospitalizations at an academic medical center in 2010. AKI was defined and staged according to KDIGO criteria, the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative's RIFLE criteria, the Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) criteria, and a definition based on a model of creatinine kinetics (CK). Outcomes of interest were incidence, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, costs, readmission rates, and posthospitalization disposition. RESULTS: AKI incidence was highest according to the KDIGO definition (18.3%) followed by the AKIN (16.6%), RIFLE (16.1%), and CK (7.0%) definitions. AKI incidence appeared markedly higher in those with low baseline serum creatinine according to the KDIGO, AKIN, and RIFLE definitions, in which AKI may be defined by a 50% increase over baseline. AKI according to all definitions was associated with a significantly higher risk of death and higher resource utilization. The adjusted odds ratios for in-hospital mortality in those with AKI were highest with the CK definition (5.2; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 4.1 to 6.6), followed by the RIFLE (2.9; 95% CI, 2.2 to 3.6), KDIGO (2.8; 95% CI, 2.2 to 3.6), and AKIN (2.6; 95% CI, 2.0 to 3.3) definitions. Concordance in diagnosis and staging was high among the KDIGO, AKIN, and RIFLE definitions. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of AKI in hospitalized individuals varies depending on the definition used. AKI according to all definitions is associated with higher in-hospital mortality and resource utilization. AKI may be inappropriately diagnosed in those with low baseline serum creatinine using definitions that incorporate percentage increases over baseline.

Variation in initial kidney replacement therapy for end-stage renal disease due to lupus nephritis in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the patterns of use of initial kidney replacement therapies among patients with lupus nephritis (LN) end-stage renal disease (ESRD). We aimed to identify sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with variation in initial kidney replacement therapies among LN ESRD patients. METHODS: Patients with incident LN ESRD (1995-2006) were identified in the US Renal Data System. Age, sex, race, ethnicity, medical insurance, employment status, residential region, clinical factors, and comorbidities were considered as potential predictors of ESRD treatment choice, i.e., peritoneal dialysis (PD), hemodialysis (HD), or preemptive kidney transplantation in age-adjusted and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 11,317 individuals with incident LN ESRD, 82.0% initiated HD, 12.2% initiated PD, and 2.8% underwent preemptive kidney transplantation. Receiving initial PD was significantly associated with earlier calendar year, female sex, higher albumin and hemoglobin levels, and lower serum creatinine levels. African Americans (versus whites), Medicaid beneficiaries and those with no health insurance (versus private insurance), and those unemployed (versus employed) had significantly reduced PD initiation. Comorbidities including congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, and the inability to ambulate were also associated with decreased PD. Many sociodemographic and clinical factors favoring PD were associated with preemptive kidney transplant (versus dialysis) as well. CONCLUSION: Few patients with LN ESRD receive initial PD or preemptive kidney transplantation. Race, ethnicity, employment, and medical insurance type are strongly associated with initial kidney replacement therapy choice. Future studies need to investigate the appropriateness of sociodemographic and clinical variation and the comparative effectiveness of kidney replacement therapies for LN ESRD.

The incidence and prognostic significance of acute kidney injury.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Acute kidney injury is an increasingly common and potentially catastrophic complication in hospitalized patients. This review summarizes the major epidemiologic studies that have informed our understanding of the incidence and prognostic significance of acute kidney injury. RECENT FINDINGS: Early observational studies from the 1980s and 1990s established the general epidemiologic features of acute kidney injury, including the incidence, prognostic significance and predisposing medical and surgical conditions. Recent multicenter observational cohorts and administrative databases have enhanced our understanding of the overall disease burden of acute kidney injury and trends in its epidemiology. An increasing number of clinical studies focusing on specific types of acute kidney injury (e.g. following exposure to intravenous contrast, sepsis and major surgery) have provided further details into this heterogeneous syndrome. SUMMARY: In light of the increasing incidence and prognostic significance of acute kidney injury, new strategies for prevention and treatment are desperately needed.

Validity of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification Codes for Acute Renal Failure.

Administrative and claims databases may be useful for the study of acute renal failure (ARF) and ARF that requires dialysis (ARF-D), but the validity of the corresponding diagnosis and procedure codes is unknown. The performance characteristics of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for ARF were assessed against serum creatinine-based definitions of ARF in 97,705 adult discharges from three Boston hospitals in 2004. For ARF-D, ICD-9-CM codes were compared with review of medical records in 150 patients with ARF-D and 150 control patients. As compared with a diagnostic standard of a 100% change in serum creatinine, ICD-9-CM codes for ARF had a sensitivity of 35.4%, specificity of 97.7%, positive predictive value of 47.9%, and negative predictive value of 96.1%. As compared with review of medical records, ICD-9-CM codes for ARF-D had positive predictive value of 94.0% and negative predictive value of 90.0%. It is concluded that administrative databases may be a powerful tool for the study of ARF, although the low sensitivity of ARF codes is an important caveat. The excellent performance characteristics of ICD-9-CM codes for ARF-D suggest that administrative data sets may be particularly well suited for research endeavors that involve patients with ARF-D.