Evaluation of a chronic kidney disease risk assessment service in community pharmacies

Impact of a pharmacy-led screening and intervention in people at risk of or living with chronic kidney disease in a primary care setting: a cluster randomised trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasingly recognised as a growing global public health problem. Early detection and management can significantly reduce the loss of kidney function. The proposed trial aims to evaluate the impact of a community pharmacy-led intervention combining CKD screening and medication review on CKD detection and quality use of medicines (QUM) for patients with CKD. We hypothesise that the proposed intervention will enhance detection of newly diagnosed CKD cases and reduce potentially inappropriate medications use by people at risk of or living with CKD.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a multicentre, pragmatic, two-level cluster randomised controlled trial which will be conducted across different regions in Australia. Clusters of community pharmacies from geographical groups of co-located postcodes will be randomised. The project will be conducted in 122 community pharmacies distributed across metropolitan and rural areas. The trial consists of two arms: (1) Control Group: a risk assessment using the QKidney CKD risk assessment tool, and (2) Intervention Group: a risk assessment using the QKidney CKD plus Point-of-Care Testing for kidney function markers (serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate), followed by a QUM service. The primary outcomes of the study are the proportion of patients newly diagnosed with CKD at the end of the study period (12 months); and rates of changes in the number of medications considered problematic in kidney disease (number of medications prescribed at inappropriate doses based on kidney function and/or number of nephrotoxic medications) over the same period. Secondary outcomes include proportion of people on potentially inappropriate medications, types of recommendations provided by the pharmacist (and acceptance rate by general practitioners), proportion of people who were screened, referred, and took up the referral to visit their general practitioners, and economic and other patient-centred outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial protocol has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Sydney (2022/044) and the findings of the study will be presented at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journal(s).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622000329763).

Australian Community Pharmacists' Experience of Implementing a Chronic Kidney Disease Risk Assessment Service

Introduction

Community pharmacists are well positioned to deliver chronic kidney disease (CKD) screening services. However, little is known about the challenges faced by pharmacists during service implementation. This study aimed to explore community pharmacists’ experiences and perceived barriers of implementing a CKD risk assessment service.

Methods

Data collection was performed by using semistructured, open-ended interview questions. Pharmacists who had implemented a CKD screening service in Tasmania, Australia, were eligible to participate. A purposeful sampling strategy was used to select pharmacists, with variation in demographics and pharmacy location. A conventional content analysis approach was used to conduct the qualitative study. Transcripts were thematically analyzed by using the NVivo 11 software program. Initially, a list of free nodes was generated and data were coded exhaustively into relevant nodes. These nodes were then regrouped to form highly conceptualized themes.

Results

Five broad themes emerged from the analysis: contextual fit within community pharmacy; perceived scope of pharmacy practice; customer perception toward disease prevention; CKD – an underestimated disease; and remuneration for a beneficial service. Pharmacists found the CKD service efficient, user-friendly, and of substantial benefit to their customers. However, several pharmacists observed that their customers lacked interest in disease prevention, and had limited understanding of CKD. More importantly, pharmacists perceived the scope of pharmacy practice to depend substantially on interprofessional collaboration between pharmacists and general practitioners, and customer acknowledgment of pharmacists’ role in disease prevention.

Conclusion

Community pharmacists perceived the CKD service to be worth incorporating into pharmacy practice. To increase uptake, future CKD services should aim to improve customer awareness about CKD before providing risk assessment. Further research investigating strategies to enhance general practitioner involvement in pharmacist-initiated disease prevention services is also needed.