A National audit of the care of patients with acute kidney injury in England and Wales in 2019 and the association with patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication of hospitalisations. This national audit assessed the care received by patients with AKI in hospital Trusts in England and Wales.

METHODS

Twenty four hospital Trusts across England and Wales took part. Patients with AKI stage2/3 were identified using the UK Renal Registry AKI master patient index. Data was returned through a secure portal with linkage to hospital episode statistic mortality and hospitalisation data. Completion rates of AKI care standards and regional variations in care were established.

RESULTS

989 AKI episodes were included in the analyses. In-hospital 30-day mortality was 31-33.1% (AKI 2/3). Standard AKI interventions were completed in >80% of episodes. Significant inter-hospital variation remained in attainment of AKI care standards after adjustment for age and sex. Recording of urinalysis (41.9%) and timely imaging (37.2%) were low. Information on discharge summaries relating to medication changes/re-commencement and follow-up blood tests associated with reduced mortality. No quality indicators relating to clinical management associated with mortality. Better communication on discharge summaries associated with reduced mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes for patients with AKI in hospital remain poor. Regional variation in care exists. Work is needed to assess whether improving and standardising care improves patient outcomes.

Barriers to Home Haemodialysis

INTRODUCTION

Significant variation exists in the prevalence of home haemodialysis (HHD) among UK renal centres. Our centre has a HHD prevalence of 2%, and we aimed to study how many patients who chose HHD as their preferred mode of renal replacement therapy (RRT) went on to receive this treatment and the barriers to starting this treatment.

METHODS

A retrospective single-centre analysis of electronic medical records for all patients who chose HHD at the time of RRT education was performed, and data were collected on patient demographics, comorbidity, frailty, RRT events, and barriers to HHD.

RESULTS

116 patients chose HHD as their preferred mode of RRT between 2006 and 2018. Of these patients, 93 required RRT, but only 28 patients ever received HHD. No statistical difference was identified between those patients who only received unit haemodialysis (UHD) and those who went onto receive HHD with respect to age, gender, comorbidity, frailty, and socioeconomic deprivation. Patient choice, change in clinical condition, transplantation, home environment, vascular access problems, and training delays were identified as reasons patients did not start HHD. No documented reason could be found in 9 patients with a breakdown of communication between clinics and peripheral dialysis units attributed as a significant contributor in some of these patients. Of the 26 patients who started HHD after UHD, 19 did so within 1 year of starting UHD.

CONCLUSION

Most patients who choose HHD do not receive HHD. Many patients never start HHD because of potentially reversible barriers including inadequate communication among clinicians about patient choices, patients changing their minds once in a dialysis unit, and inadequate timely training support.

The Challenges of Using UK Renal Registry Data to Audit the Care of Patients with Diabetes on Renal Replacement Therapy

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes is a major cause of CKD and of mortality in patients on renal replacement therapy (RRT). Auditing the care of patients with diabetes on RRT against published guidelines relies on robust data collection.

OBJECTIVE

This article assesses the completeness of data items collected by the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) that are required to audit the care of patients with diabetes on RRT.

METHODS

The UKRR receives data on all patients receiving RRT in the UK. Patients with diabetes, diabetes type, and method of renal diagnosis were identified from primary renal disease (PRD) codes and comorbidity data for patients commencing RRT at one of the 57 renal centres in England and Wales between 2010 and 2016. The completeness of demographic and clinical data (blood pressure, cholesterol, glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c], and smoking status) was assessed for the first year of RRT.

RESULTS

Ninety-three per cent of all patients on RRT irrespective of diagnosis had a PRD code, but only 28/57 renal centres had comorbidity data completeness ≥70%; 34.9% of patients with diabetic nephropathy (DN) had type 1 diabetes, but this varied between centres (9.2-100%). Overall, 4.2% of DN diagnoses were by biopsy. Data completeness in the first year of RRT for cardiovascular risk factors ranged between 50.0 and 80.0%, with HbA1c data completeness being 63.0%. Of 57 centres, 20 had HbA1c data for ≥70% of patients in the first year of RRT.

CONCLUSIONS

There is persistent variation between renal centres in the completeness of data collected on patients with diabetes on RRT, impacting on the ability to undertake robust audit. Data linkages and expanded data permissions could see registry data play a key role in ongoing audit and research into patients with diabetes and CKD, provided adequate data can be collected.

Exploring the choices and outcomes of older patients with advanced kidney disease

A lack of data on patient choices and outcomes at the time of pre-dialysis planning limits meaningful shared decision making, particularly in older frailer patients. In this large retrospective cohort study of patients aged over 70 seen by the pre-dialysis clinic (2004–2016) of a large single centre in the United Kingdom (1,216 patients), age, sex, comorbidity, poverty and frailty were used to predict choice of renal replacement therapy (RRT) over maximum conservative management (MCM). The impact of patient choice of RRT versus MCM was used to predict survival from the time of choice using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Older age, female sex, greater poverty and greater frailty were associated with choosing MCM, whilst comorbidity had no significant impact on choice. At 5 years of follow up, 49% of all patients had died without receiving RRT. Over 70% of the patients choosing MCM died with better kidney function than the median level at which those starting RRT initiated treatment. Frailty and age were better predictors of survival than comorbidity and in patients with at least moderate frailty, RRT offered no survival benefit over MCM. In conclusion, analysing outcomes from the time of choice may improve shared decision making. Frailty should be routinely assessed and collected and further work may help predict which patients are unlikely to survive or progress to end stage renal disease and may not need to be burdened with making a pre-dialysis choice.

Who do we discharge from renal clinic and what does it mean for primary care?

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether discharging patients from renal clinic to primary care is safe.

AIM

To determine the characteristics, primary care monitoring and renal outcomes of patients discharged from renal clinic.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective study of 2236 adults discharged from a tertiary renal clinic between 2013-2018.

METHOD

Patient demographics, primary renal disease, laboratory results and timeline dates were collected from the renal IT system. Timing of blood tests, renal progression, needing dialysis and patient survival were analysed. Reasons for discharge and cause of disease progression were reviewed in patients developing new estimated glomerular filtration rate <20 ml/min/1.73 m2.

RESULTS

Patients were older (median age 75; interquartile range 63-84) with non-progressive, seemingly non-proteinuric renal disease. Median time to repeat blood test post-discharge was 75 days with 90% tested within 12 months. Sixty-six percent saw an improvement in kidney function post-discharge and only 13% had a decline of >10 ml/min/1.73 m2. Only 132 patients (6%) developed new advanced chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 20 ml/min/1.73 m2) of whom 40% were palliative, 36% had developed acute kidney injury and 23% discharged for failing to attend clinic. One hundred and thirty-four patients (6%) were referred back to nephrology and eight started dialysis of whom six were discharged for failure to attend clinic.

CONCLUSION

Most discharged patients are low risk of progressive renal disease and need infrequent monitoring. Non-adherent patients discharged for failing to attend appear to be at risk of poor outcomes and new strategies are needed to better support this population.

Peritoneal Dialysis: Turning Choice into Reality

Background

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) utilization rates vary widely between UK renal centers. Currently there are only limited data available on how many patients choose PD but subsequently fail to start their chosen modality. In the current analysis we sought to explore the outcomes of patients who chose PD in our center where all PD catheters are inserted via a mini-laparotomy with no acute-start PD service.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of 658 patients over a 12-year period who, following predialysis education had chosen PD as their preferred renal replacement therapy (RRT) modality. Data were collected on patient demographics, start modality, transplantation, patient survival, and the reasons patients failed to start PD.

Results

Predialysis education was given to 2,749 patients, and 658 (24%) chose PD. Of the 566 (86%) who either started RRT or died, less than half started PD ( n = 273, 48%). The commonest reason to start hemodialysis (HD) was an acute decline in kidney function leading to an effective ‘unplanned’ start on RRT. As a result, despite adjusting for older age and higher comorbidity, the transplant-censored survival at 3 years from the time of start of RRT was predictably worse in patients starting HD. Less than half the patients who started HD went on to commence PD later.

Conclusion

Unanticipated decline in kidney function leading to unplanned start on HD contributes to the worse outcomes associated with failing to start PD. How and when we insert PD catheters appears to be key, and we have identified ways to improve our service.