Step-Wise Management of Anemia in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease in Primary Care: Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Anemia is common in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and reduced quality of life, but is often sub-optimally managed. Most patients are managed in primary care alongside other comorbidities. Interventions to improve the management of anemia in CKD in this setting are needed. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study to evaluate how an audit-based education (ABE) intervention might improve the management of anemia in CKD. We explored outcomes that would be relevant to practitioners and patients, that exposed variation of practice from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines, and whether the intervention was feasible and acceptable. RESULTS: Practitioners (n = 5 groups) and patients (n = 7) from 4 London general practices participated in discussions. Practitioners welcomed the evidence-based step-wise intervention. However, prescribing erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) was felt to be outside of their scope of practice. There was a gap between NICE guidance and clinical practice in primary care. Iron studies were not well understood and anemia management was often conservative or delayed. Patients were often unaware of having CKD, and were more concerned about their other comorbidities, but largely trusted their GPs to manage them appropriately. CONCLUSIONS: The first steps of the intervention were welcomed by practitioners, but they expressed concerns about independently prescribing ESAs. Renal physicians and GPs could develop shared care protocols for ESA use in primary care. There is scope to improve awareness of renal anemia, and enhance knowledge of guideline recommendations; and our intervention should be modified accordingly.

Physician Associate and General Practitioner Consultations: A Comparative Observational Video Study.

BACKGROUND: Physician associates, known internationally as physician assistants, are a mid-level practitioner, well established in the United States of America but new to the United Kingdom. A small number work in primary care under the supervision of general practitioners, where they most commonly see patients requesting same day appointments for new problems. As an adjunct to larger study, we investigated the quality of the patient consultation of physician associates in comparison to that of general practitioners. METHOD: We conducted a comparative observational study using video recordings of consultations by volunteer physician associates and general practitioners with consenting patients in single surgery sessions. Recordings were assessed by experienced general practitioners, blinded to the type of the consulting practitioner, using the Leicester Assessment Package. Assessors were asked to comment on the safety of the recorded consultations and to attempt to identify the type of practitioner. Ratings were compared across practitioner type, alongside the number of presenting complaints discussed in each consultation and the number of these which were acute, minor, or regarding a chronic condition. RESULTS: We assessed 62 consultations (41 general practitioner and 21 physician associates) from five general practitioners and four physician associates. All consultations were assessed as safe; but general practitioners were rated higher than PAs in all elements of consultation. The general practitioners were more likely than physician associates to see people with multiple presenting complaints (p<0.0001) and with chronic disease related complaints (p = 0.008). Assessors correctly identified general practitioner consultations but not physician associates. The Leicester Assessment Package had limited inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The physician associate consultations were with a less complex patient group. They were judged as competent and safe, although general practitioner consultations, unsurprisingly, were rated as more competent. Physician associates offer a complementary addition to the medical workforce in general practice.

Development of a questionnaire to evaluate practitioners' confidence and knowledge in primary care in managing chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, chronic disease, including chronic kidney disease (CKD) is largely managed in primary care. We developed a tool to assess practitioner confidence and knowledge in managing CKD compared to other chronic diseases. This questionnaire was part of a cluster randomised quality improvement interventions in chronic kidney disease (QICKD; ISRCTN56023731). METHODS: The questionnaire was developed by family physicians, primary care nurses, academics and renal specialists. We conducted three focus groups (n=7, 6, and 8) to refine the questionnaire using groups of general practitioners, practice nurses and trainees in general practice. We used paper based versions to develop the questionnaire and online surveys to test it. Practitioners in a group of volunteer, trial practices received the questionnaire twice. We measured its reliability using Cohen's Kappa (K). RESULTS: The practitioners in the focus groups reached a consensus as to the key elements to include in the instrument. We achieved a 73.1% (n=57/78) initial response rate for our questionnaire; of these 57, 54 completed the questionnaire a second time. Family physicians made up the largest single group of respondents (47.4%, n=27). Initial response showed more female (64.9%, n=37) than male (35.1%, n=20) respondents. The reliability results from retesting showed that there was moderate agreement (k>0.4) on all questions; with many showing substantial agreement (k>0.6). There was substantial agreement in the questions about loop diuretics (k=0.608, CI 0.432-0.784, p<0.001), confidence in managing hypertension (k=0.628, 95%CI 0.452-0.804, p<0.001), diastolic blood pressure treatment thresholds in CKD (k=0.608, 95%CI 0.436-0.780, p<0.001) and the rate of decline of eGFR that would prompt referral (k=0.764, 95%CI 0.603-0.925, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The QICKD-CCQ is a reliable instrument for measuring confidence and knowledge among primary care practitioners on CKD management in the context of UK primary care.