Referring patients with chronic kidney disease back to primary care: a criteria-based analysis in outpatient renal clinics.

BACKGROUND: The increased demand for nephrology care for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) necessitates a critical review of the need for secondary care facilities and the possibilities for referral back to primary care. This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics and numbers of patients who could potentially be referred back to primary care, using predefined criteria developed by nephrologists and general practitioners. METHOD: We organised a consensus meeting with eight nephrologists and two general practitioners to define the back referral (BR) criteria, and performed a retrospective cohort study reviewing records from patients under nephrologist care in three hospitals. RESULTS: We reached a consensus about the BR criteria. Overall, 78 of the 300 patients (26%) in the outpatient clinics met the BR criteria. The characteristics of the patients who met the BR criteria were: 56.4% male, a median age of 70, an average of 3.0 outpatients visits per year, and a mean estimated glomerular filtration rate of 46 ml/min/1,73m2. Hypertension was present in 67.9% of this group, while 27.3% had diabetes and 16.9% had cancer. The patients who could be referred back represented all CKD stages except stage G5. The most common stage (16%) was G3bA2 (eGFR 30 ≤ 44 and ACR 3 ≤ 30). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of patients were eligible for referral back to primary care. These patients often have a comorbidity, such as hypertension or diabetes. Future research should focus on generalisability of the BR criteria, the feasibility of actual implementation of the back referral, follow-up assessments of renal function and patient satisfaction.

General practitioners' perspectives on management of early-stage chronic kidney disease: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Guideline adherence in chronic kidney disease management is low, despite guideline implementation initiatives. Knowing general practitioners' (GPs') perspectives of management of early-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the applicability of the national interdisciplinary guideline could support strategies to improve quality of care. METHOD: Qualitative focus group study with 27 GPs in the Netherlands. Three analysts open-coded and comparatively analysed the data. Mind-mapping sessions were performed after data-saturation. RESULTS: Five themes emerged: defining CKD, knowledge and awareness, patient-physician interaction, organisation of CKD care and value of the guideline. A key finding was the abstractness of the CKD concept. The GPs expressed various perspectives about defining CKD and interpreting estimated glomerular filtration rates. Views about clinical relevance influenced the decision-making, although factual knowledge seems lacking. Striving to inform well enough without creating anxiety and to explain suitably for the intellectual ability of the patient caused tension in the patient-physician interaction. Integration with cardiovascular disease-management programmes was mentioned as a way of implementing CKD care in the future. The guideline was perceived as a rough guide rather than a leading document. CONCLUSION: CKD is perceived as an abstract rather than a clinical concept. Abstractness plays a role in all formulated themes. Management of CKD patients in primary care is complex and is influenced by physician-bound considerations related to individual knowledge and perception of the importance of CKD. Strategies are needed to improve GPs' understanding of the concept of CKD by education, a holistic approach to guidelines, and integration of CKD care into cardiovascular programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Adherence to chronic kidney disease guidelines in primary care patients is associated with comorbidity.

Background: GPs insufficiently follow guidelines regarding consultation and referral for chronic kidney disease (CKD). Objective: To identify patient characteristics and quality of care (QoC) in CKD patients with whom consultation and referral recommendations were not followed. Method: A 14 month prospective observational cohort study of primary care patients with CKD stage 3-5. 47 practices participated, serving 207469 people. 2547 CKD patients fulfilled consultation criteria, 225 fulfilled referral criteria. We compared characteristics of patients managed by GPs with patients receiving nephrologist co-management. We assessed QoC as adherence to monitoring criteria, CKD recognition and achievement of blood pressure (BP) targets. Results: Patients treated in primary care despite a consultation recommendation (94%) had higher eGFR values (OR 1.07; 95% CI: 1.05-1.09), were less often monitored for renal function (OR 0.42; 95% CI: 0.24-0.74) and potassium (OR 0.56; 95% CI: 0.35-0.92) and CKD was less frequently recognised (OR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.31-0.68) than in patients with nephrologist co-management. Patients treated in primary care despite referral recommendation (70%) were older (OR 1.03; 95% CI:1.01-1.06) and had less cardiovascular disease (OR 0.37; 95% CI: 0.19-0.73). Overall, in patients solely managed by GPs, CKD recognition was 50%, monitoring disease progression in 36% and metabolic parameters in 3%, BP targets were achieved in 51%. Monitoring of renal function and BP was positively associated with diabetes (OR 3.10; 95% CI: 2.47-3.88 and OR 7.78; 95% CI: 3.21-18.87) and hypertension (OR 3.19; 95% CI: 2.67-3.82 and OR 3.35; 95% CI: 1.45-7.77). Conclusion: Patients remaining in primary care despite nephrologists' co-management recommendations were inadequately monitored, and BP targets were insufficiently met. CKD patients without cardiovascular comorbidity or diabetes require extra attention to guarantee adequate monitoring of renal function and BP.

Referring patients with stable moderate-to-advanced chronic kidney disease back to primary care: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Care for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) necessitates tailored pathways between primary and secondary care. It is unknown if back referring patients with CKD is safe and effective. AIM: To study the feasibility of discharging patients with stable moderate-to-advanced CKD from secondary to primary care, and to evaluate quality of care (QoC) and patients' and GPs' experiences. DESIGN & SETTING: A monocentre prospective mixed-method study in the Netherlands. METHOD: Patients were included who met pre-determined back-referral (BR) criteria. Patients were discharged with personalised information guides and transfer letters. GPs had the option of consulting a nephrologist by telenephrology. Renal outcomes, QoC, and experiences were collected after 1 year. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were included. The mean age was 73 years; the mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 33.2 ml/min/1.73 m2 at baseline. After 1 year, four patients had received either no or incomplete monitoring, and one patients' blood pressure was too high. The remaining 13 had stable eGFR, proteinuria, and metabolic parameters. Patients were satisfied with information provision and treatment by GPs but expected more frequent monitoring. In one-third of cases, monitoring frequency was decreased by GPs for several reasons. GPs believed they had sufficient knowledge to treat patients with CKD, but indicated they needed support besides a transfer letter. CONCLUSION: BR seems safe and feasible for patients with stable moderate-to-advanced CKD who meet specific criteria. Patients have good renal outcomes after 1 year and are satisfied with treatment. GP QoC can be improved, particularly completeness and monitoring frequency.

What Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Kidney Disease Know, Think, and Feel about Their Disease: An In-Depth Interview Study.

INTRODUCTION: It is unknown what patients in primary care with mild-to-moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD) know, think, and feel about their diagnoses and how they value the information provided. The aim of the study was to explore their knowledge, thoughts, and experiences concerning their CKD and the information given to them. METHOD: Qualitative interview study with patients with mild-to-moderate CKD who know their diagnoses and are treated mainly by family physicians. RESULTS: Four themes arose: CKD literacy, coping with anxiety, prerequisites for self-management, and reciprocity in information provision. The participants filled deficiencies in their CKD knowledge with misconceptions and half-truth about causes, symptoms, and treatment. The anxiety about CKD at the time of diagnosis versus the feeling of irrelevance later on was due to the absence of CKD symptoms and their physicians' minimization of the seriousness of CKD. Participants failed to connect lifestyle and cardiovascular disease with CKD. Not all participants were well informed about the consequences that CKD might have. CKD literacy and willingness to change were both necessary to accept lifestyle changes. Further, the participants felt that it would be helpful when information comes with empathy and is tailored to patients' personal needs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients have various perceptions about their CKD. Exploring these perceptions could help match their needs with better-tailored information. Doctors should be aware that they can deliver inaccurate signals about CKD severity, so that patients fail to realize the potential impact of CKD. This makes them less open to lifestyle changes and improving their self-management.