Uncoded chronic kidney disease in primary care: a cross-sectional study of inequalities and cardiovascular disease risk management

Primary healthcare professionals' approach to clinical coding: a qualitative interview study in Wales

BACKGROUND

Clinical coding allows for structured and standardised recording of patients' electronic healthcare records. How clinical and non-clinical staff in general practice approach clinical coding is poorly understood.

AIM

To explore primary care staff's experiences and views on clinical coding.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative, semi-structured interview study among primary care staff across Wales.

METHOD

All general practices within Wales were invited to participate via NHS health boards. Semi-structured questions guided interviews, conducted between February 2023 and June 2023. Audio-recorded data were transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 19 participants were interviewed and six themes were identified: coding challenges, motivation to code, making coding easier, daily task of coding, what and when to code, and coding through COVID.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the complexity of clinical coding in primary care. Clinical and non-clinical staff spoke of systems that lacked intuitiveness, and the challenges of multimorbidity and time pressures when coding in clinical situations. These challenges are likely to be exacerbated in socioeconomically deprived areas, leading to underreporting of disease in these areas. Challenges of clinical coding may lead to implications for data quality, particularly the validity of research findings generated from studies reliant on clinical coding from primary care. There are also consequences for patient care. Participants cared about coding quality and wanted a better way of using coding. There is a need to explore technological and non-technological solutions, such as artificial intelligence, training, and education to unburden people using clinical coding in primary care.

Detecting and managing the patient with chronic kidney disease in primary care: A review of the latest guidelines

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major global health problem, affecting about 9.5% of the population and 850 million people worldwide. In primary care, most CKD is caused by diabetes and/or hypertension, but a substantial proportion of cases may have alternative causes. During the early stages, CKD is asymptomatic, and many people are unaware that they are living with the disease. Despite the lack of symptoms, CKD is associated with elevated risks of cardiovascular disease, progressive kidney disease, kidney failure and premature mortality. Risk reduction strategies are effective and cost-effective but require early diagnosis through testing of the estimated glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria in high-risk populations. Once diagnosed, the treatment of CKD centres around lifestyle interventions, blood pressure and glycaemic control, and preventative treatments for cardiovascular disease and kidney disease progression. Most patients with CKD should be managed with statins, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Additional treatment options to reduce cardiorenal risk are available in patients with diabetes, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The Kidney Failure Risk Equation is a new tool that can support the identification of patients at high risk of progressive kidney disease and kidney failure and can be used to guide referrals to nephrology. This review summarizes the latest guidance relevant to managing adults with, or at risk of, CKD and provides practical advice for managing patients with CKD in primary care.

Individual and neighborhood-level social and deprivation factors impact kidney health in the GLOMMS-CORE study

Prospective cohort studies of kidney equity are limited by a focus on advanced rather than early disease and selective recruitment. Whole population studies frequently rely on area-level measures of deprivation as opposed to individual measures of social disadvantage. Here, we linked kidney health and individual census records in the North of Scotland (Grampian area), 2011-2021 (GLOMMS-CORE) and identified incident kidney presentations at thresholds of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) under 60 (mild/early), under 45 (moderate), under 30 ml/min/1.73m2 (advanced), and acute kidney disease (AKD). Household and neighborhood socioeconomic measures, living circumstances, and long-term mortality were compared. Case-mix adjusted multivariable logistic regression (living circumstances), and Cox models (mortality) incorporating an interaction between the household and the neighborhood were used. Among census respondents, there were 48546, 29081, 16116, 28097 incident presentations of each respective eGFR cohort and AKD. Classifications of socioeconomic position by household and neighborhood were related but complex, and frequently did not match. Compared to households of professionals, people with early kidney disease in unskilled or unemployed households had increased mortality (adjusted hazard ratios: 95% confidence intervals) of (1.26: 1.19-1.32) and (1.77: 1.60-1.96), respectively with adjustment for neighborhood indices making little difference. Those within either a deprived household or deprived neighborhood experienced greater mortality, but those within both had the poorest outcomes. Unskilled and unemployed households frequently reported being limited by illness, adverse mental health, living alone, basic accommodation, lack of car ownership, language difficulties, and visual and hearing impairments. Thus, impacts of deprivation on kidney health are spread throughout society-complex, serious, and not confined to those living in deprived neighborhoods.

Prevalence of undetected chronic kidney disease in high-risk middle-aged patients in primary care: a cross-sectional study

Introduction

The global health burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) results from both the disease itself and the numerous health problems associated with it. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of previously undetected CKD in middle-aged patients with risk factors for CKD. Identified patients were included in the Styrian nephrology awareness program "kidney.care 2.0" and data on their demographics, risk factors and kidney function were described.

Methods

Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data derived from the "kidney.care 2.0" study of 40-65 year old patients with at least one risk factor for CKD (hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity or family history of end-stage kidney disease). Participants were considered to have previously undetected CKD if their estimated glomular filtration rate (eGFR) was less than 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 and/or albumin creatinine ratio (ACR) ≥ 30 mg/g. We calculated the prevalence of previously undetected CKD and performed multivariate analyses.

Results

A total of 749 participants were included in this analysis. The prevalence of previously undetected CKD in an at-risk population was estimated at 20.1% (95%CI: 17.1-23.6). Multivariable analysis showed age (OR 1.06, 95%CI: 1.02-1.09), diabetes mellitus (OR 1.65, 95%CI: 1.12-2.30) and obesity (OR: 1.55, 95%CI: 1.04-2.30) to be independent predictors of CKD. The majority of patients with previously undetected CKD had category A2-A3 albuminuria (121 out of 150). Most patients with previously undetected eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 were in stage G3 (36 out of 39 patients).

Discussion

Pragmatic, targeted, risk-based screening for CKD in primary care successfully identified a significant number of middle-aged patients with previously undetected CKD and addressed the problem of these patients being overlooked for future optimized care. The intervention may slow progression to kidney failure and prevent related cardiovascular events.

Management of patients with chronic kidney disease: a French medical centre database analysis

OBJECTIVE(S)

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an insidious disease that requires early nephroprotective measures to delay progression to end-stage kidney disease. The objective of this study was to describe the management of patients with CKD in primary care, including clinical and biological monitoring and prescribed treatments. A retrospective, single-centre study was conducted on adult patients who were treated in the Maison de Neufchâtel (France) between 2012 and 2017 at least once a year. The inclusion criteria were 2 estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) measurements <60 mL/min more than 3 months apart. Two subgroups were constituted according to whether CKD was coded in the electronic medical records (EMRs).

RESULTS

A total of 291 (6.7%, CI95% 5.9-7.4) patients with CKD were included. The mean eGFR was 51.0 ± 16.4 mL/min. Hypertension was the most frequent health problem reported (n = 93, 32%). Nephrotective agents were prescribed in 194 (66.7%) patients, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in 22 (8%) patients, and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) in 147 (47%) patients. CKD coding in EMRs was associated with dosage of natraemia (n = 34, 100%, P < 0.01), albuminuria (n = 20, 58%, P < 0.01), vitamin D (n = 14, 41%, P < 0.001), and phosphorus (n = 11, 32%, P < 0.001). Eighty-one patients (31.5%) with low eGFR without an entered code for CKD were prescribed an albuminuria dosage. Clinical monitoring could not be analysed due to poor coding.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study reinforces the hypothesis that CKD is underscreened and undermanaged. More systematic coding of medical information in EMRs and further studies on medical centre databases should improve primary care practices.

Diagnosis codes underestimate chronic kidney disease incidence compared with eGFR-based evidence: a retrospective observational study of patients with type 2 diabetes in UK primary care

BACKGROUND

Type two diabetes (T2D) is a leading cause of both chronic kidney disease (CKD) and onward progression to end-stage renal disease. Timely diagnosis coding of CKD in patients with T2D could lead to improvements in quality of care and patient outcomes.

AIM

To assess the consistency between estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)-based evidence of CKD and CKD diagnosis coding in UK primary care.

DESIGN & SETTING

A retrospective analysis of electronic health record data in a cohort of people with T2D from 60 primary care centres within England between 2012 and 2022.

METHOD

We estimated the incidence rate of CKD per 100 person-years using eGFR-based CKD and diagnosis codes. Logistic regression was applied to establish which attributes were associated with diagnosis coding. Time from eGFR-based CKD to entry of a diagnosis code was summarised using the median and interquartile range.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of CKD was 2.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.24 to 2.41) and significantly higher for eGFR-based criteria than diagnosis codes: 1.98 (95% CI = 1.90 to 2.05) versus 1.06 (95% CI = 1.00 to 1.11), respectively; P<0.001. Only 45.4% of CKD incidences identified using eGFR-based criteria had a corresponding diagnosis code. Patients who were younger, had a higher CKD stage (G4), had an observed urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (A1), or no observed HbA1c in the past year were more likely to have a diagnosis code.

CONCLUSION

Diagnosis coding of patients with eGFR-based evidence of CKD in UK primary care is poor within patients with T2D, despite CKD being a well-known complication of diabetes.

Inequalities in the management of diabetic kidney disease in UK primary care: A cross-sectional analysis of a large primary care database

AIMS

To determine differences in the management of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) relevant to patient sex, ethnicity and socio-economic group in UK primary care.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis as of January 1, 2019 was undertaken using the IQVIA Medical Research Data dataset, to determine the proportion of people with DKD managed in accordance with national guidelines, stratified by demographics. Robust Poisson regression models were used to calculate adjusted risk ratios (aRR) adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity and social deprivation.

RESULTS

Of the 2.3 million participants, 161,278 had type 1 or 2 diabetes, of which 32,905 had DKD. Of people with DKD, 60% had albumin creatinine ratio (ACR) measured, 64% achieved blood pressure (BP, <140/90 mmHg) target, 58% achieved glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c, <58 mmol/mol) target, 68% prescribed renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor in the previous year. Compared to men, women were less likely to have creatinine: aRR 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-0.99), ACR: aRR 0.94 (0.92-0.96), BP: aRR 0.98 (0.97-0.99), HbA1c : aRR 0.99 (0.98-0.99) and serum cholesterol: aRR 0.97 (0.96-0.98) measured; achieve BP: aRR 0.95 (0.94-0.98) or total cholesterol (<5 mmol/L) targets: aRR 0.86 (0.84-0.87); or be prescribed RAAS inhibitors: aRR 0.92 (0.90-0.94) or statins: aRR 0.94 (0.92-0.95). Compared to the least deprived areas, people from the most deprived areas were less likely to have BP measurements: aRR 0.98 (0.96-0.99); achieve BP: aRR 0.91 (0.8-0.95) or HbA1c : aRR 0.88 (0.85-0.92) targets, or be prescribed RAAS inhibitors: aRR 0.91 (0.87-0.95). Compared to people of white ethnicity; those of black ethnicity were less likely to be prescribed statins aRR 0.91 (0.85-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

There are unmet needs and inequalities in the management of DKD in the UK. Addressing these could reduce the increasing human and societal cost of managing DKD.

Ethnic inequalities in multiple long-term health conditions in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Indicative evidence suggests that minoritised ethnic groups have higher risk of developing multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs), and do so earlier than the majority white population. While there is evidence on ethnic inequalities in single health conditions and comorbidities, no review has attempted to look across these from a MLTCs perspective. As such, we currently have an incomplete understanding of the extent of ethnic inequalities in the prevalence of MLTCs. Further, concerns have been raised about variations in the way ethnicity is operationalised and how this impedes our understanding of health inequalities. In this systematic review we aimed to 1) describe the literature that provides evidence of ethnicity and prevalence of MLTCs amongst people living in the UK, 2) summarise the prevalence estimates of MLTCs across ethnic groups and 3) to assess the ways in which ethnicity is conceptualised and operationalised. We focus on the state of the evidence prior to, and during the very early stages of the pandemic. We registered the protocol on PROSPERO (CRD42020218061). Between October and December 2020, we searched ASSIA, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, OpenGrey, and reference lists of key studies/reviews. The main outcome was prevalence estimates for MLTCs for at least one minoritised ethnic group, compared to the majority white population. We included studies conducted in the UK reporting on ethnicity and prevalence of MLTCs. To summarise the prevalence estimates of MLTCs across ethnic groups we included only studies of MLTCs that provided estimates adjusted at least for age. Two reviewers screened and extracted data from a random sample of studies (10%). Data were synthesised using narrative synthesis. Of the 7949 studies identified, 84 met criteria for inclusion. Of these, seven contributed to the evidence of ethnic inequalities in MLTCs. Five of the seven studies point to higher prevalence of MLTCs in at least one minoritised ethnic group compared to their white counterparts. Because the number/types of health conditions varied between studies and some ethnic populations were aggregated or omitted, the findings may not accurately reflect the true level of ethnic inequality. Future research should consider key explanatory factors, including those at the macrolevel (e.g. racism, discrimination), as they may play a role in the development and severity of MLTCs in different ethnic groups. Research is also needed to ascertain the extent to which the COVID19 pandemic has exacerbated these inequalities.

Association between practice coding of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care and subsequent hospitalisations and death: a cohort analysis using national audit data

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between practice percentage coding of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care with risk of subsequent hospitalisations and death.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using linked electronic healthcare records.

SETTING

637 general practitioner (GP) practices in England.

PARTICIPANTS

167 208 patients with CKD stages 3-5 identified by 2 measures of estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, separated by at least 90 days, excluding those with coded initiation of renal replacement therapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Hospitalisations with cardiovascular (CV) events, heart failure (HF), acute kidney injury (AKI) and all-cause mortality RESULTS: Participants were followed for (median) 3.8 years for hospital outcomes and 4.3 years for deaths. Rates of hospitalisations with CV events and HF were lower in practices with higher percentage CKD coding. Trends of a small reduction in AKI but no substantial change in rate of deaths were also observed as CKD coding increased. Compared with patients in the median performing practice (74% coded), patients in practices coding 55% of CKD cases had a higher rate of CV hospitalisations (HR 1.061 (95% CI 1.015 to 1.109)) and HF hospitalisations (HR 1.097 (95% CI 1.013 to 1.187)) and patients in practices coding 88% of CKD cases had a reduced rate of CV hospitalisations (HR 0.957 (95% CI 0.920 to 0.996)) and HF hospitalisations (HR 0.918 (95% CI 0.855 to 0.985)). We estimate that 9.0% of CV hospitalisations and 16.0% of HF hospitalisations could be prevented by improving practice CKD coding from 55% to 88%. Prescription of antihypertensives was the most dominant predictor of a reduction in hospitalisation rates for patients with CKD, followed by albuminuria testing and use of statins.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher levels of CKD coding by GP practices were associated with lower rates of CV and HF events, which may be driven by increased use of antihypertensives and regular albuminuria testing, although residual confounding cannot be ruled out.

Care processes and outcomes of deprivation across the clinical course of kidney disease: findings from a high-income country with universal healthcare

BACKGROUND

No single study contrasts the extent and consequences of inequity of kidney care across the clinical course of kidney disease.

METHODS

This population study of Grampian (UK) followed incident presentations of AKI, and incident eGFR thresholds of < 60, <45 and < 30 in separate cohorts (2011-2021). The key exposure was area-level deprivation (lowest quintile of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation). Outcomes were care processes (monitoring, prescribing, appointments, unscheduled care); long-term mortality; and kidney failure. Modelling involved multivariable logistic regression, negative binomial regression, and cause specific Cox models with/without adjustment of comorbidities.

RESULTS

There were 41 313, 51 190, 32 171, and 17 781 new presentations of AKI, and eGFR thresholds < 60, <45 and < 30. 6.1-7.8% were from deprived areas, and (vs all others) presented on average five years younger, with more diabetes, pulmonary and liver disease. Those from deprived areas were more likely to present initially in hospital, less likely to receive community monitoring, less likely to attend appointments, and more likely to have an unplanned emergency department or hospital admission episode. Deprivation had greatest association with long-term kidney failure at the eGFR < 60 threshold (adjusted HR 1.48, 1.17-1.87), and this association attenuated with advancing disease severity (HR 1.09, 0.93-1.28 at eGFR < 30); with a similar pattern for mortality. Across all analyses the most detrimental associations of deprivation were at an eGFR < 60 threshold, AKI, males, and those aged < 65 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in a high-income country with universal healthcare, serious and consistent inequities of kidney care exist. The poorer care and outcomes with area-level deprivation were greater earlier in the disease course.

Risk of COVID-19 in shielded and nursing care home patients: a cohort study in general practice

Background

COVID-19 cases were first detected in the UK in January 2020 and vulnerable patients were asked to shield from March to reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection.

Aim

To determine the risk and determinants of COVID-19 diagnosis in shielded versus non-shielded groups, adjusted for key comorbidities not explained by shielding.

Design & setting

Retrospective cohort study of adults with COVID-19 infection between 1 February 2020 and 15 May 2020 in west London.

Method

Individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 were identified in SystmOne records using clinical codes. Infection risks were adjusted for sociodemographic factors, nursing home status, and comorbidities.

Results

Of 57 713 adults, 573 (1%) individuals were identified as shielded and 1074 adults had documented COVID-19 infections (1.9%). COVID-19 infection rate in the shielded group individuals compared with non-shielded adult individuals was 6.5% (n = 37/573) versus 1.8% (n = 1037/57 140), P<0.001. A multivariable fully adjusted Cox proportional hazards (CPH) regression identified that COVID-19 infection was increased with shielding status (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00 to 2.30; P = 0.048). Other determinants of COVID-19 infection included nursing home residency (aHR 7.05; 95% CI = 4.22 to 11.77; P<0.001); Black African (aHR 2.52; 95% CI = 1.99 to 3.18; P<0.001), Other (aHR 1.74; 95% CI = 1.42 to 2.13; P<0.001), Non-stated (aHR 1.70; 95% CI = 1.02 to 2.84; P = 0.04), or South Asian ethnic group (aHR 1.46; 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.93; P = 0.01); history of respiratory disease (aHR 1.51; 95% CI = 1.06 to 2.16; P = 0.02); deprivation (third versus least deprived Index of Multiple Deprivation [IMD] quintile) (aHR 1.25 ; 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.56; P = 0.05); obesity (body mass index [BMI] >30 kg/m²) (aHR 1.39; 95% CI = 1.18 to 1.63; P<0.001); and age (aHR 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.02; P<0.001. Male sex was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 infection (aHR 0.71; 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.82; P<0.001).

Conclusion

Shielded individuals had a higher COVID-19 infection rate compared with non-shielded individuals, after adjusting for sociodemographic factors, nursing home status, and comorbidities.

Associations between attainment of incentivised primary care diabetes indicators and mortality in an English cohort

AIMS

To describe associations between incentivised primary care clinical and process indicators and mortality, among patients with type 2 diabetes in England.

METHODS

A historical 2010-2017 cohort (n = 84,441 adults) was derived from the UK CPRD. Exposures included English Quality and Outcomes Framework glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; 7.5%, 59 mmol/mol), blood pressure (140/80 mmHg), and cholesterol (5 mmol/L) indicator attainment; and number of National Diabetes Audit care processes completed, in 2010-11. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Over median 3.9 (SD 2.0) years follow-up, 10,711 deaths occurred. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) indicated 12% (95% CI 8-16%; p < 0.0001) and 16% (11-20%; p < 0.0001) lower mortality rates among those who attained the HbA1c and cholesterol indicators, respectively. Rates were also lower among those who completed 7-9 vs. 0-3 or 4-6 care processes (aHRs 0.76 (0.71-0.82), p < 0.0001 and 0.61 (0.53-0.71), p < 0.0001, respectively), but did not obviously vary by blood pressure indicator attainment (aHR 1.04, 1.00-1.08; p = 0.0811).

CONCLUSIONS

Cholesterol, HbA1c and comprehensive process indicator attainment, was associated with enhanced survival. Review of community-based care provision could help reduce the gap between indicator standards and current outcomes, and in turn enhance life expectancy.