Dissemination and Implementation Science: A Primer and Applications in Nephrology

Optimizing Care Delivery in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease in the United States: Proceedings of a Multidisciplinary Roundtable Discussion and Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Approximately 37 million individuals in the United States (US) have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Patients with CKD have a substantial morbidity and mortality, which contributes to a huge economic burden to the healthcare system. A limited number of clinical pathways or defined workflows exist for CKD care delivery in the US, primarily due to a lower prioritization of CKD care within health systems compared with other areas (e.g., cardiovascular disease [CVD], cancer screening). CKD is a public health crisis and by the year 2040, CKD will become the fifth leading cause of years of life lost. It is therefore critical to address these challenges to improve outcomes in patients with CKD.

METHODS

The CKD Leaders Network conducted a virtual, 3 h, multidisciplinary roundtable discussion with eight subject-matter experts to better understand key factors impacting CKD care delivery and barriers across the US. A premeeting survey identified topics for discussion covering the screening, diagnosis, risk stratification, and management of CKD across the care continuum. Findings from this roundtable are summarized and presented herein.

RESULTS

Universal challenges exist across health systems, including a lack of awareness amongst providers and patients, constrained care team bandwidth, inadequate financial incentives for early CKD identification, non-standardized diagnostic classification and triage processes, and non-centralized patient information. Proposed solutions include highlighting immediate and long-term financial implications linked with failure to identify and address at-risk individuals, identifying and managing early-stage CKD, enhancing efforts to support guideline-based education for providers and patients, and capitalizing on next-generation solutions.

CONCLUSIONS

Payers and other industry stakeholders have opportunities to contribute to optimal CKD care delivery. Beyond addressing the inadequacies that currently exist, actionable tactics can be implemented into clinical practice to improve clinical outcomes in patients at risk for or diagnosed with CKD in the US.

Implementation of the ASCENT Trial to Improve Transplant Waitlisting Access

Introduction

The Allocation System for changes in Equity in Kidney Transplantation (ASCENT) study was a hybrid type 1 trial of a multicomponent intervention among 655 US dialysis facilities with low kidney transplant waitlisting to educate staff and patients about kidney allocation system (KAS) changes and increase access to and reduce racial disparities in waitlisting. Intervention components included a staff webinar, patient and staff educational videos, and facility-specific feedback reports.

Methods

Implementation outcomes were assessed using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance Framework. Postimplementation surveys were administered among intervention group facilities (n = 334); interviews were conducted with facility staff (n = 6). High implementation was defined as using 3 to 4 intervention components, low implementation as using 1 to 2 components, and nonimplementation as using no components.

Results

A total of 331 (99%) facilities completed the survey; 57% were high implementers, 31% were low implementers, and 12% were nonimplementers. Waitlisting events were higher or similar among high versus low implementer facilities for incident and prevalent populations; for Black incident patients, the mean proportion waitlisted in low implementer facilities was 0.80% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.87) at baseline and 0.55% at 1-year (95% CI: 0.48-0.62) versus 0.83% (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) at baseline and 1.40% at 1-year (95% CI: 1.35-1.45) in high implementer facilities. Interviews revealed that the intervention helped facilities prioritize transplant education, but that intervention components were not uniformly shared.

Conclusion

The findings provide important context to interpret ASCENT effectiveness results and identified key barriers and facilitators to consider for future modification and scale-up of multilevel, multicomponent interventions in dialysis settings.

Mitigating Health Disparities in Transplantation Requires Equity, Not Equality

Despite decades of research and evidence-based mitigation strategies, disparities in access to transplantation persist for all organ types and in all stages of the transplant process. Although some strategies have shown promise for alleviating disparities, others have fallen short of the equity goal by providing the same tools and resources to all rather than tailoring the tools and resources to one's circumstances. Innovative solutions that engage all stakeholders are needed to achieve equity regardless of race, sex, age, socioeconomic status, or geography. Mitigation of disparities is paramount to ensure fair and equitable access for those with end-stage disease and to preserve the trust of the public, upon whom we rely for their willingness to donate organs. In this overview, we present a summary of recent literature demonstrating persistent disparities by stage in the transplant process, along with policies and interventions that have been implemented to combat these disparities and hypotheses for why some strategies have been more effective than others. We conclude with future directions that have been proposed by experts in the field and how these suggested strategies may help us finally arrive at equity in transplantation.

A Process Evaluation of the National Implementation of a Bundle for Central Venous Catheter Care for Hemodialysis

Key Points

Health professionals resisted practice change in environments of low infection where the perception of a need to change is small. Standardizing care of central venous catheters for hemodialysis requires breaking down silos of practice to benefit all patients. Knowledge of and adherence to guidelines, formal change management, and ongoing facilitation are required to implement standardized care.

Background

Implementation of a care bundle standardizing insertion, management, and removal practices to reduce infection related to central venous catheters (CVCs) used for hemodialysis was evaluated in a stepped wedge, cluster randomized controlled trial conducted at 37 Australian hospitals providing kidney services, with no reduction in catheter-related blood stream infection detected. This process evaluation explored the barriers, enablers, and unintended consequences of the implementation to explain the trial outcomes.

Methods

Qualitative process evaluation using pre-post semistructured interviews with 38 (19 nursing and 19 medical) and 44 (25 nursing and 19 medical) Australian health professionals involved in hemodialysis CVC management. Analysis was guided by the process implementation domain of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Results

Key influences on bundle uptake were that clinicians were open to change that was evidence-based and driven by guidelines and had a desire to improve practice and patient outcomes. However, resistance to change in environments of low infection, working in silos of practice, and a need for individualized delivery of patient education created barriers to uptake. Unintended effects of increased costs and lack of interoperability of systems for data collection were reported. Because the trial was in progress at the time of qualitative data collection, perceptions of the bundle may have been influenced by the fact that practices of participants were being observed as a part of the trial.

Conclusion

This national process evaluation revealed that health professionals who reported experiencing a benefit viewed the bundle positively. Those who already provided most of the recommended care or perceived that their patient population was not included in the research evidence that underpinned the interventions, resisted the implementation of the bundle. Potentially, formal change management processes using facilitation may improve implementation of evidence-based practice.

Clinical Trial registry name and registration number:

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616000830493 .

Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio and serum albumin are predictors of acute kidney injury in non-ventilated COVID-19 patients: a single-center prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication among COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit, but it is less frequently investigated in general internal medicine wards. We aimed to examine the incidence, the predictors of AKI, and AKI-associated mortality in a prospective cohort of non-ventilated COVID-19 patients. We aimed to describe the natural history of AKI by describing trajectories of urinary markers of hemodynamic, glomerular, and tubular injury.

METHODS

141 COVID-19 patients were enrolled to the study. AKI was defined according to KDIGO guidelines. Urine and renal function parameters were followed twice a week. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the predictors of AKI and mortality. Trajectories of urinary markers were described by unadjusted linear mixed models.

RESULTS

19.7% patients developed AKI. According to multiple logistic regression, higher urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.04-2.12/1 mg/mmol) and lower serum albumin (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.94/1 g/L) were independent predictors of AKI. Mortality was 42.8% in the AKI and 8.8% in the group free from AKI (p < 0.0001). According to multiple logistic regression, older age, lower albumin, and AKI (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.24-12.21) remained independent predictors of mortality. Urinary protein-to-creatinine trajectories were diverging with decreasing values in those without incident AKI.

CONCLUSION

We found high incidence of AKI and mortality among moderately severe, non-ventilated COVID-19 patients. Its development is predicted by higher albuminuria suggesting that the originally damaged renal structure may be more susceptible for virus-associated effects. No clear relationship was found with a prerenal mechanism, and the higher proteinuria during follow-up may point toward tubular damage.