Understanding the impact of academic difficulties among medical students: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Many medical students may encounter a range of academic and personal challenges during their course of study, but very little is known about their experiences. Our aim was to review the literature to inform future scholarship and to inform policy change. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted searching PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, British Education Index, Web of Science and ERIC for English language primary research with no date limits. This retrieved 822 papers of which eight met the requirements for inclusion in the review. Data were independently reviewed by two researchers and underwent thematic analysis by the research team. RESULTS: Three major themes emerged. Theme 1: 'Identity preservation' addressed students' aim to preserve their sense of self in the face of academic difficulty and their tendency to seek support. This connected the apprehension many students expressed about their educational institutions to Theme 2: 'The dual role of the medical school'-medical schools are required to support struggling students but are predominantly seen as a punitive structure acting as the gatekeeper to a successful career in medicine. Students' apprehension and attempts to protect their identities within this complex landscape often resulted in 'maladaptive coping strategies' (Theme 3). CONCLUSION: Understanding and exploring the academic challenges faced by medical students through their own experiences highlight the need for the development of more individualised remediation strategies. Educators may need to do more to bridge the gap between students and institutions. There is a need to build trust and to work with students to enhance their sense of self and remediate approaches to engagement with learning, rather than focusing efforts on success in assessments and progression.

Estimated GFR reporting influences recommendations for dialysis initiation.

Automated reporting of estimated GFR (eGFR) with serum creatinine measurement is now common. We surveyed nephrologists in four countries to determine whether eGFR reporting influences nephrologists' recommendations for dialysis initiation. Respondents were randomly allocated to receive a survey of four clinical vignettes that included either serum creatinine concentration only or serum creatinine and the corresponding eGFR. For each scenario, the respondent was asked to rank his or her likelihood of recommending dialysis initiation on a modified 8-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ("definitely not") to 8 ("definitely would"). Analysis of the 822 eligible responses received showed that the predicted likelihood of recommending dialysis increased by 0.55 points when eGFR was reported (95% confidence interval, 0.33 to 0.76), and this effect was larger for eGFRs >5 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (P<0.001). Subgroup analyses suggested that physicians who had been in practice ≥13 years were more affected by eGFR reporting (P=0.03). These results indicate that eGFR reporting modestly increases the likelihood that dialysis is recommended, and physicians should be aware of this effect when assessing patients with severe CKD.

Renal centre characteristics and physician practice patterns associated with home dialysis use.

BACKGROUND: There is a wide variation in home dialysis use (peritoneal dialysis and home haemodialysis) between renal centres. This study identifies which centre characteristics and practice patterns are associated with home dialysis use. METHODS: An observational study of all UK patients starting renal replacement therapy (RRT) in 2007-2008 using patient characteristics from the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) and renal centre characteristics ascertained from a national survey. Multilevel logistic regression was used to examine the association between patient and centre characteristics and home dialysis uptake. RESULTS: Twenty-six per cent of 11 913 patients used home dialysis and survey responses were available from every renal centre. After taking into account patient factors, several centre factors were associated with a higher probability of home dialysis: physicians aspiring to a higher 'ideal' peritoneal dialysis rate (odds ratio, OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06-1.37, P = 0.003 per 10% increase in 'ideal' percentage), early use of peritoneal dialysis (PD, OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.18-1.95, P < 0.001), use of home visits to educate patients pre-dialysis (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.05-1.83, P = 0.02) and to provide trouble-shooting advice for existing home dialysis patients (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.11-2.42, P = 0.01). Using videos/DVDs as part of the pre-dialysis education programme was associated with a lower probability of home dialysis, but this was correlated with lower levels of physician enthusiasm (r = -0.48, P < 0.001). After adjustment for this, the association disappeared (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55-1.07, P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Home dialysis use is associated with modifiable centre factors as well as individual patient characteristics.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Drug-Induced Acute Kidney Injury Cases.

Introduction: Drug-induced acute kidney injury (DI-AKI) is a frequent adverse event. The identification of DI-AKI is challenged by competing etiologies, clinical heterogeneity among patients, and a lack of accurate diagnostic tools. Our research aims to describe the clinical characteristics and predictive variables of DI-AKI. Methods: We analyzed data from the Drug-Induced Renal Injury Consortium (DIRECT) study (NCT02159209), an international, multicenter, observational cohort study of enriched clinically adjudicated DI-AKI cases. Cases met the primary inclusion criteria if the patient was exposed to at least 1 nephrotoxic drug for a minimum of 24 hours prior to AKI onset. Cases were clinically adjudicated, and inter-rater reliability (IRR) was measured using Krippendorff's alpha. Variables associated with DI-AKI were identified using L1 regularized multivariable logistic regression. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC). Results: A total of 314 AKI cases met the eligibility criteria for this analysis, and 271 (86%) cases were adjudicated as DI-AKI. The majority of the AKI cases were recruited from the United States (68%). The most frequent causal nephrotoxic drugs were vancomycin (48.7%), nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (18.2%), and piperacillin/tazobactam (17.8%). The IRR for DI-AKI adjudication was 0.309. The multivariable model identified age, vascular capacity, hyperglycemia, infections, pyuria, serum creatinine (SCr) trends, and contrast media as significant predictors of DI-AKI with good performance (ROC AUC 0.86). Conclusion: The identification of DI-AKI is challenging even with comprehensive adjudication by experienced nephrologists. Our analysis identified key clinical characteristics and outcomes of DI-AKI compared to other AKI etiologies.

How much of the regional variation in RRT incidence rates within the UK is explained by the health needs of the general population?

BACKGROUND: Variation in end-stage renal disease treatment rates in the UK persist after adjustment for socio-demographic factors. METHODS: UK-wide ecological study using population socio-demographic factors, health status characteristics and access to health services factor in to explain the incidence of renal replacement therapy (RRT). RESULTS: There was a 6% higher incidence rate of RRT per standard deviation (SD) increase in area diabetes prevalence after adjustment for area level socio-economic deprivation status and the proportion of non-white residents [incidence rate ratio adjusted (IRR adjusted) 1.06 (95% confidence interval 1.03,1.09), P < 0.001]. A 3% lower-adjusted RRT incidence rate was seen with each SD higher proportion of diabetics achieving an HbA1c of <7.5% [IRR 0.97 (0.94, 1.00), P = 0.03]. Hypertension prevalence was independently associated with an 8% higher RRT incidence rate per SD increase [IRR adjusted 1.08 (1.04, 1.11), P < 0.001] and an SD increase in life expectancy in an area was independently associated with 7% lower RRT incidence rate [IRR adjusted 0.93 (0.91, 0.96), P < 0.001]. An SD increase in premature cardiovascular (CV) mortality rate in an area was also independently associated with RRT incidence rates [IRR adjusted 1.06 (1.03, 1.09), P < 0.001]. Rates of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)/angioplasty and knee replacement were positively associated with RRT incidence, but mammography uptake was not associated. In total, 31% of the regional variation in RRT incidence could be explained by these factors. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes prevalence, the proportion of diabetics achieving good glycaemic control, hypertension prevalence, life expectancy, premature CV mortality, CABG/angioplasty and knee replacement rates were all associated with RRT incidence. A third of the regional variation in RRT incidence between areas can be explained by these demographic, health and access to health services factors.

Chapter 1 UK RRT incidence in 2010: national and centre-specific analyses.

INTRODUCTION: This chapter describes the characteristics of adult patients starting renal replacement therapy (RRT) in the UK in 2010 and the incidence rates for RRT in Primary Care Trusts and Health Boards (PCT/HBs) in the UK. METHODS: The basic demographics and clinical characteristics are reported on patients starting RRT from all UK renal centres. Presentation time, defined as time between first being seen by a nephrologist and start of RRT, was also studied. Age and gender standardised ratios for incidence rates in PCT/HBs were also calculated. RESULTS: In 2010, the incidence rates in the UK and England were similar to 2009 at 107 per million population (pmp). The incidence rate fell in Scotland (from 104 pmp to 95 pmp), increased in Northern Ireland (from 88 pmp to 101 pmp) and Wales (from 120 pmp to 128 pmp). There were wide variations between PCT/HBs in standardised incidence ratios. The median age of all incident patients was 64.9 years (IQR 51.0, 75.2). For transplant centres this was 63.1 years (IQR 49.7, 74.2) and for non-transplanting centres 66.5 years (IQR 52.9, 76.0). The median age for non-Whites was 57.1 years. Diabetic renal disease remained the single most common cause of renal failure (24%). By 90 days, 68.3% of patients were on haemodialysis, 18.1% on peritoneal dialysis, 7.7% had had a transplant and 5.9% had died or stopped treatment. The mean eGFR at the start of RRT was 8.7 ml/ min/1.73 m(2) which was similar to the previous three years. Late presentation (<90 days) fell from 28.2% in 2005 to 20.6% in 2010. There was no relationship between social deprivation and presentation pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence rates have plateaued in England over the last five years. They have fallen in Scotland and fallen and then risen again in Northern Ireland and Wales. Wales continued to have the highest incidence rate of the countries making up the UK.

Chapter 6 Survival and causes of death of UK adult patients on renal replacement therapy in 2010: national and centre-specific analyses.

INTRODUCTION: These analyses examine a) survival from the start of renal replacement therapy (RRT), based on the total incident UK RRT population reported to the UK Renal Registry, including the 18% who started on PD and the 7% who received a pre-emptive transplant and b) survival of prevalent patients. Changes in survival between 1997 and 2009 are also reported. METHODS: Survival of incident patients (starting RRT during 2009) was calculated both from the start of RRT and from 90 days after starting RRT, both with and without censoring at transplantation. Survival of prevalent dialysis patients was calculated to exclude patients once they were transplanted. Both Kaplan-Meier and Cox adjusted models were used to calculate survival. Causes of death were analysed for both groups. Relative risk of death was calculated compared with the general UK population. RESULTS: The 2009 unadjusted 1 year after 90 day survival for patients starting RRT was 86.6% (87.3% in 2008). In incident patients aged 18-64, the unadjusted 1 year survival had increased from 86.0% in 1997 to 91.3% in 2009. In incident patients aged ≥ 65, unadjusted 1 year survival had improved from 64.1% to 76.2%. There were no survival differences between genders. The relative risk of death compared to the general population decreased from 25 times at age 30-34 to 2.7 times at age 85+. Cause of death data completeness has improved 18% since last year. Cardiac disease is the most common cause of death in prevalent dialysis patients and malignancy most frequent in prevalent transplant patients. CONCLUSIONS: Survival of patients starting RRT has improved for all ages since 1997. The frequency of cardiac disease as the cause of death has decreased since 1997.

Chapter 2 UK RRT prevalence in 2010: national and centre-specific analyses.

INTRODUCTION: This chapter describes the characteristics of adult patients on renal replacement therapy (RRT) in the UK in 2010. METHODS: Data were electronically collected from all 72 renal centres within the UK. Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were performed to describe the demographics of prevalent RRT patients in 2010 at centre and national level. Age and gender standardised ratios for prevalence rates per million population per year were calculated. RESULTS: There were 50,965 adult patients receiving RRT in the UK on 31st December 2010. The UK prevalence of RRT (including paediatric patients) was 832 pmp. This represented an annual increase in prevalent numbers of approximately 4% although there was significant variation between centres and regions. From 2009 to 2010 there was a 1.5% increase in the number of patients on haemodialysis (HD), a 3.2% fall in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients and a 5.4% increase in patients with a functioning transplant. The number of patients receiving home HD has increased 23% since 2009. Median RRT vintage was 5.6 years. The median age was 57.9 years (HD 66.3 years, PD 61.7 years and transplant 51.2 years) compared to 55 years in 2000. Prevalence rates in males exceeded those in females. The most common identifiable renal diagnosis was biopsyproven glomerulonephritis (16.0%), followed by diabetes (14.9%). Transplantation was the most common treatment modality (48%), HD in 44% and PD 8%. CONCLUSIONS: The HD and transplant population continued to expand whilst the PD population contracted. There were national, regional and dialysis centre level variations in prevalence rates. Prevalent patients were on average 4 years older than 10 years ago. This has implications for service planning and ensuring equity of care for RRT patients.

UK Renal Registry 13th Annual Report (December 2010): Chapter 1: UK RRT incidence in 2009: national and centre-specific analyses.

INTRODUCTION: This chapter describes the characteristics of adult patients starting renal replacement therapy (RRT) in the UK in 2009 and the acceptance rates for RRT in Primary Care Trusts and Health Boards (PCT/HBs) in the UK. METHODS: The basic demographics and clinical characteristics are reported on patients starting RRT from all UK renal centres. Late presentation, defined as time between first being seen by a nephrologist and start of RRT being <90 days was also studied. Age and gender standardised ratios for acceptance rates in PCT/HBs were calculated. RESULTS: In 2009, the incidence rate in the UK and England was 109 per million population (pmp). Acceptance rates in Scotland (104 pmp), Northern Ireland (88 pmp) and Wales (120 pmp) had all fallen although Wales still remained the country with the highest acceptance rate. There were wide variations between PCT/HBs with respect to the standardised ratios. The median age of all incident patients was 64.8 years (IQR 50.8, 75.1). For transplant centres this was 63.0 years (IQR 49.0, 74.2) and for non-transplanting centres 66.3 years (IQR 52.6, 75.9). The median age for non-Whites was 57.1 years. Diabetic renal disease remained the single most common cause of renal failure (25%). By 90 days, 69.1% of patients were on haemodialysis, 17.7% on peritoneal dialysis, 6.7% had had a transplant and 6.5% had died or stopped treatment. The mean eGFR at the start of RRT was 8.6 ml/min/1.73 m2 which was similar to the previous two years. Late presentation (<90 days) has fallen from 27% in 2004 to 19% in 2009. There was no relationship between social deprivation and presentation pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptance rates have fallen in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales whilst they have plateaued in England over the last four years. Wales continued to have the highest acceptance rate of the countries making up the UK.

UK Renal Registry 13th Annual Report (December 2010): Chapter 7: the relationship between the type of vascular access used and survival in UK RRT patients in 2006.

INTRODUCTION: The type of vascular access used by haemodialysis patients is thought to be one of the predictors of patient survival. However, many previous studies have been unable to separate the effect of access type from the effects of other differences between patients groups or have included incident patients. Some centres report excellent outcomes using dialysis catheters in stable prevalent patients and challenge the current guidelines about the use of long term catheters. This is an observational UK centre level study reporting on the relationship between the percentage of established prevalent patients using definitive access and the subsequent 1 year survival. METHOD: Vascular access audit data from 2005 and UKRR survival data at 1 year for patients who had been on HD for over 3 months was obtained from the UKRR database. Regression analysis was used to assess the amount of variation in 1 year survival that could be explained by the percentage of patients using an AVF or AVG in a centre. RESULTS: From the renal centres reporting to the UKRR in 2005, 16,984 patients had vascular access data. The mean centre level 1 year survival was 86.4% (95% CI: 82.2-90.9) and was 86.9% (95% CI: 82.8-91.2) after censoring for transplantation. The mean percentage of haemodialysis patients using definitive access (AVF or AVG) in a centre was 69.8% (SD 10.4). A small positive association was found between the percentage of HD patients using an AVF or AVG in a centre and 1 year uncensored survival (ß = 0.06, p = 0.04). The type of access in use was able to explain 6% of the variation in centre level survival. CONCLUSIONS: To some extent, this study has repeated work done by DOPPS and in the US but for the first time has studied only prevalent dialysis patients and looked at the UK dialysis population. Whilst increased venous catheter use was associated with an increase in one year mortality of prevalent established haemodialysis patients, this effect was very small and only accounted for some 6% of the variation in one year mortality between renal centres. Further work using data from the current large vascular access audit needs to be done to further elucidate best practice within the UK.

UK Renal Registry 13th Annual Report (December 2010): Chapter 2: UK RRT prevalence in 2009: national and centre-specific analyses.

INTRODUCTION: This chapter describes the characteristics of adult patients on renal replacement therapy (RRT) in the UK in 2009. The prevalence rates per million population (pmp) were calculated for Primary Care Trusts in England, Health and Social Care Areas in Northern Ireland, Local Health Boards in Wales and Health Boards in Scotland. These areas will be referred to in this report as 'PCT/HBs'. METHODS: Data were electronically collected from all 72 renal centres within the UK. A series of cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were performed to describe the demographics of prevalent RRT patients in 2009 at centre and national level. Age and gender standardised ratios for prevalence rates in PCT/HBs were calculated. RESULTS: There were 49,080 adult patients receiving RRT in the UK on 31st December 2009, equating to a UK prevalence of 794 pmp. This represented an annual increase in prevalent numbers of approximately 3.2% although there was significant variation between centres and PCT/HB areas. The growth rate from 2008 to 2009 for prevalent patients by treatment modality in the UK was 4.2% for haemodialysis (HD), a fall of 7.2% for peritoneal dialysis (PD) and a growth of 4.4% with a functioning transplant. There has been a slow but steady decline in the proportion of PD patients from 2000 onwards. Median RRT vintage was 5.4 years. The median age of prevalent patients was 57.7 years (HD 65.9 years, PD 61.2 years and transplant 50.8 years). For all ages, prevalence rates in males exceeded those in females: peaks for males were in the 75-79 years age group at 2,632 pmp and for females in the 70-74 years age group at 1,445 pmp. The most common identifiable renal diagnosis was biopsy-proven glomerulonephritis (16.0%), followed by diabetes (14.7%). Transplantation was the most common treatment modality (48%), HD in 44% and PD 8%. However, HD was increasingly common with increasing age and transplantation less common. CONCLUSIONS: The HD and transplant population continued to expand whilst the PD population contracted. There were national, regional and dialysis centre level variations in prevalence rates. This has implications for service planning and ensuring equity of care for RRT patients.

UK Renal Registry 13th Annual Report (December 2010): Chapter 6: survival and causes of death of UK adult patients on renal replacement therapy in 2009: national and centre-specific analyses.

INTRODUCTION: These analyses examine (a) survival from the start of renal replacement therapy (RRT), based on the total incident UK RRT population reported to the UK Renal Registry, including the 18% who started on PD and the 6% who received a pre-emptive transplant and (b) survival of prevalent patients. Changes in survival between 1997 and 2008 are also reported. METHODS: Survival was calculated for both incident and prevalent patients on RRT and compared between the UK countries after adjustment for age. Survival of incident patients (starting RRT during 2008) was calculated both from the start of RRT and amongst the cohort who survived at least 90 days after RRT, both with and without censoring at transplantation. Both Kaplan-Meier and Cox adjusted models were used to calculate survival. Causes of death were analysed for both groups. Relative risk of death was calculated compared with the general UK population. RESULTS: The 2008 unadjusted 1 year after 90 day survival for patients starting RRT was 87.3%. In incident patients aged 18-64, the unadjusted 1 year survival had risen from 85.9% in 1997 to 91.9% in 2008 and for those aged ≥ 65 it had risen from 64.2% to 75.8%. The age-adjusted one year survival (adjusted to age 60) of prevalent dialysis patients rose from 85% in 2000 to 89% in 2009. Diabetic prevalent patient one year survival rose from 76.6% in 2000 to 83.6% in 2009. The age-standardised mortality ratio for prevalent RRT patients compared with the general population was 19 at age 30 years and 2.4 at age 85 years. In the prevalent RRT dialysis population, cardiovascular disease accounted for 24% of deaths, infection 19% and treatment withdrawal 14%; 22% were recorded as uncertain. Treatment withdrawal was a more frequent cause of death in patients aged ≥ 65 at start of RRT than in younger patients. The median life years remaining for a 25-29 year old on RRT was 20 years and 4 years for a 75+ year old. CONCLUSIONS: Survival of patients starting RRT, has improved in the 2008 incident cohort. The relative risk of death on RRT compared with the general population has fallen since 2001. Death rates on dialysis in the UK remained lower than when compared with a similar aged population on dialysis in the USA.

UK Renal Registry 13th Annual Report (December 2010): Chapter 10: calcium, phosphate, parathyroid hormone, bicarbonate and total cholesterol concentrations amongst patients receiving haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2009: national and centre-specific analyses.

INTRODUCTION: The UK Renal Association Clinical Practice Guidelines include clinical performance measures for biochemical variables in dialysis patients [1]. The UK Renal Registry (UKRR) annually audits dialysis centre performance against these measures as part of its role in promoting continuous quality improvement. METHODS: Cross sectional performance analyses were undertaken to compare dialysis centre achievement of clinical audit measures for prevalent haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) cohorts in 2009. The biochemical variables studied were phosphate, adjusted calcium, parathyroid hormone, bicarbonate and total cholesterol. In addition longitudinal analyses were performed (2000-2009) to show changes in achievement of clinical performance measures over time. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of HD and 70% of PD patients had phosphate between 1.1-1.8 mmol/L. Seventy-four percent of HD and 75% of PD patients had adjusted calcium between 2.2-2.5 mmol/L. Twenty-eight percent of HD and 32% of PD patients had parathyroid hormone between 16-32 pmol/L. Seventy-two percent of HD and 83% of PD patients achieved the audit measure for bicarbonate. There was significant inter-centre variation for all variables studied. CONCLUSIONS: The UKRR consistently demonstrates significant inter-centre variation in achievement of biochemical clinical audit measures. Understanding the causes of this variation is an important part of improving the care of dialysis patients in the UK.

UK Renal Registry 13th Annual Report (December 2010): Chapter 15: UK renal centre survey results 2010: RRT incidence and use of home dialysis modalities.

INTRODUCTION: RRT incidence rates and the proportion of patients using a home dialysis modality (peritoneal or home haemodialysis) varies widely between centres and persists even after area differences in age, ethnicity and social deprivation structure are taken into account. A nationwide survey was undertaken to identify possible drivers of this variation. METHODS: A systematic literature review followed by a two-stage Delphi consensus technique was employed to identify renal centre characteristics and practice patterns that may be important in determining either RRT incidence or home modality usage. RESULTS: All 72 (100%) of UK adult renal centres responded. Questions about staffing numbers, interface with primary care, interface with other secondary care sites, capacity within the HD programme, constituents of pre-dialysis education programmes, conservative management programmes, range of treatments available, dialysis access and training and physician attitudes to home modalities were included. CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variation in practice patterns and centre characteristics across the UK. Overall, physician enthusiasm for home dialysis modalities was greater than the actual usage of home dialysis.

UK Renal Registry 13th Annual Report (December 2010): Chapter 12: clinical, haematological and biochemical parameters in patients receiving renal replacement therapy in paediatric centres in the UK in 2009: national and centre-specific analyses.

BACKGROUND: The British Association for Paediatric Nephrology Registry was established fifteen years ago to analyse data related to renal replacement therapy for children. The registry receives data from the 13 paediatric nephrology centres in the UK. In 2008 the registry was relocated to the UK Renal Registry (UKRR). AIM: To provide centre specific data so that individual centres can reflect on the contribution that their data makes to the national picture and to determine the extent to which their patient parameters meet nationally agreed audit standards for the management of children with established renal failure. METHOD: Data were submitted by either paper or electronic returns. Data were analysed to calculate summary statistics and where applicable the percentage achieving an audit standard. The standards used were those set out by the Renal Association and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. RESULTS: Data were received from all but one centre. Anthropometric data confirmed that children with established renal failure (ERF) in the UK are short compared with their peers with no change in recent trends. In the UK as a whole, the control of blood pressure, anaemia and bone biochemistry is suboptimal. CONCLUSIONS: Key features of this report are the provision of centre specific data and comparison of data to audit standards. It is hoped that this information will provide a basis for discussion and a stimulus to improve the care of children with ERF.

UK Renal Registry 13th Annual Report (December 2010): Chapter 5: demography of the UK paediatric renal replacement therapy population in 2009.

AIMS: To describe the demographics of the paediatric RRT population under the age of 16 years in the UK and to analyse changes in demography with time. METHODS: Extraction and analysis of data from the UK Renal Registry (UKRR). RESULTS: There were 751 children <16 years old with established renal failure (ERF) in the UK in December 2009. The reported prevalence under the age of 16 years was 65 per million age related population (pmarp) and the reported incidence 9.3 pmarp. The incidence and prevalence for South Asian patients was much higher than that of the White and Black populations. Of the patients for whom a primary renal diagnosis had been reported, renal dysplasia ± reflux was the most common cause of ERF accounting for 34.0% of prevalent cases. There has been growth in treatment numbers in all paediatric renal centres between 1995 and 2010. Whilst the rate of transplantation within 90 days of commencing RRT has remained at around 25-30% of patients, the use of HD has increased by 4% at the expense of PD. CONCLUSIONS: The paediatric ERF population continued to expand with a slow increase in both incidence and prevalence rates. The high incidence in patients from ethnic minority groups will lead to a greater proportion of the population being from these groups in time. To maintain the high proportion of engrafted patients it will be necessary to encourage living donation in the ethnic minority population.

A Retrospective Study Assessing the Effect of Diabetes on Mortality in Patients With COVID-19 at a Teaching Hospital in the United Kingdom.

Aim The aim of the study was to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes (mortality, intensive care admission, mechanical ventilation, and length of stay, LoS) of patients with and without diabetes with confirmed COVID-19.  Methods This retrospective study evaluated clinical and laboratory variables in adult inpatients from Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between March 10, 2020, and June 30, 2020. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare the outcomes of patients with and without diabetes.  Results Over 457 patients were included in this study (140 with diabetes and 317 without diabetes), of which 143 (31.9%) died. The median age was 80 years and were predominantly males (59.1%). Baseline characteristics at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis demonstrated that the patients with diabetes were younger than those without diabetes (p=0.008). Mortality increased with age. There was no difference in adverse outcomes in those with and without diabetes. However, subgroup analysis of patients aged ≤60 years demonstrated a significantly increased mortality in those with diabetes (p=0.016). Patients with diabetes had an increased length-of-stay compared to those without diabetes, which was more evident in those aged ≤60 years. Conclusion Age is the most important predictor of mortality. Patients with diabetes did not have increased mortality from COVID-19, which is likely due to their younger age in our cohort. More patients with diabetes stayed in the hospital longer than seven days than those without diabetes.

UK Renal Registry 12th Annual Report (December 2009): chapter 8: adequacy of haemodialysis in UK renal centres in 2008: national and centre-specific analyses.

BACKGROUND: Outcome in patients treated with haemodialysis (HD) is influenced by the delivered dose of dialysis. The UK Renal Association (RA) publishes Clinical Practice Guidelines which include recommendations for dialysis dose. The urea reduction ratio (URR) is a widely used measure of dialysis dose. AIM: To determine the extent to which patients received the recommended dose of HD in the UK. METHODS: Seventy-two renal centres in the UK submit data electronically to the UK Renal Registry (UKRR). Two groups of patients were included in the analyses: the prevalent patient population on 31st December 2008 and the incident patient population for 2008. Centres returning data on <50% of their patient population were excluded from centre-specific comparisons. RESULTS: Data regarding URR were available from 62 renal centres in the UK. Fifty-one centres provided URR data on more than 90% of prevalent patients. There has been an increase from 56% in 1998 to 83% in 2008 in the proportion of patients in the UK who met the UK Clinical Practice Guideline for URR (>65%). There was considerable variation from one centre to another, with 9 centres attaining the RA clinical practice guideline in >90% of patients and 5 centres attaining the standard in <70% of patients. The HD dose (URR) delivered to patients who had just started dialysis treatment was lower than that of patients who had been treated for longer and increased further with time. CONCLUSIONS: The delivered dose of HD for patients with established renal failure has increased over 10 years. Whilst the large majority of patients in the UK achieved the target URR there was considerable variation between centres in the percentage of patients achieving this.

UK Renal Registry 12th Annual Report (December 2009): chapter 4: UK ESRD prevalent rates in 2008: national and centre-specific analyses.

INTRODUCTION: This chapter describes the characteristics of adult patients on renal replacement therapy (RRT) in the UK in 2008 and the prevalence rate per million population (pmp) in Primary Care Trusts and local authorities (Council Areas or District Councils) (PCT/LAs) were calculated. METHODS: Complete data were electronically collected from all 72 renal centres within the UK. A series of cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were performed to describe the demographics of prevalent RRT patients in 2008 at centre and national level in the UK. Age and gender standardised ratios of actual to expected for prevalence rates in PCT/LAs were calculated. RESULTS: There were 47,525 adult patients receiving RRT in the UK on 31/12/2008, equating to a UK prevalence of 774 pmp. This represents an annual increase in prevalence of approximately 4.4% although there was significant variation between PCT/LA areas. The pmp growth rate from 2007 to 2008 for prevalent patients by treatment modality in the UK was 5.9% for haemodialysis (HD), a fall of 9.2% for peritoneal dialysis (PD) and growth of 4.6% with a functioning transplant. Over the long term (1982-2007), the steady growth in transplant prevalent numbers was maintained at 4%. There was a slow but steady decline in PD patient numbers from 1999 onwards. Median RRT vintage was 5.3 years. The median age of prevalent patients was 57.3 years (HD 65.5 years, PD 61.0 years and transplant 50.4 years). For all ages, prevalence rates in males exceeded those in females peaking in the 75-79 years age group at 2,582 pmp for males and 70-74 years age group at 1,408 pmp for females. The most common identifiable renal diagnosis was biopsy-proven glomerulonephritis (16.0%), followed by diabetes (14.1%). Transplantation was the most common treatment modality (47%) followed closely by HD (43%). However, HD was increasingly common with increasing older age at the expense of transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: The HD and transplant population continued to expand whilst the PD population contracted. There was national, regional and dialysis centre level variation in prevalence rates. This has implications for service planning and ensuring equity of care for RRT patients.

UK Renal Registry 12th Annual Report (December 2009): chapter 10: biochemistry profile of patients receiving dialysis in the UK in 2008: national and centre-specific analyses.

INTRODUCTION: The UK Renal Association Clinical Practice Guidelines include clinical performance measures for biochemical parameters in dialysis patients [1]. The UK Renal Registry (UKRR) annually audits dialysis centre performance against these measures as part of its role in promoting continuous quality improvement. METHODS: Cross sectional performance analyses were undertaken to compare dialysis centre achievement of clinical performance measures for prevalent haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) cohorts in 2008. The biochemical variables studied were phosphate, adjusted calcium, calcium phosphate product, parathyroid hormone, bicarbonate, total cholesterol and HbA1c. In addition, longitudinal analyses were performed (2000-2008) to show changes in achievement of clinical performance measures over time. RESULTS: Serum phosphate was between 1.1 and 1.8 mmol/L in 55% of HD and 64% of PD patients, which was similar to 2007. There was a fall in overall mean phosphate concentration to 1.55 mmol/L. A revised adjusted serum calcium target of 2.2-2.5 mmol/L was achieved by 63% of HD and 65% of PD patients. For comparison, the previous target of 2.2-2.6 mmol/L was achieved by 74% and 78% respectively, a figure little changed since 2005. The downward trend in serum calcium results evident for the previous nine years appears to have halted. The calcium phosphate target of <4.8 mmol(2)/L(2) was achieved by 84% of HD and 87% of PD patients, continuing the steady improvement over the past nine years and reflecting the downward trend in phosphate results. As in previous years, a minority of patients achieved the PTH target range of 16-32 pmol/L and there was considerable heterogeneity between centres. Although analytical and biological variability may have contributed to this, centres achieving the standards relating to one mineral parameter tended to achieve the standards in others suggesting that treatment factors were also relevant. The audit measure for bicarbonate was achieved in 71% of HD and 82% of PD patients. Eighty-five percent of HD patients and 69% of PD patients achieved a value for total cholesterol <5 mmol/L. This was the first year that HbA1c has been audited. Overall, 43% of diabetic dialysis patients exceeded the target of 7.5% HbA1c and there was considerable variation between centres. CONCLUSION: There is wide variation between centres in attainment of biochemical performance measures. There is some evidence in bone mineral metabolism that centres performing well in one variable are more likely to also meet the other standards. The inter-centre variation may be explained in part by laboratory practices and case mix but probably also represents variation in practice and in effectiveness of processes of care. Apart from glycaemic control there are a number of analytical and clinical factors that affect HbA1c that would be worthy of further investigation as a cause of variability.