Person:

Samal, Lipika

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasingly common and under-recognized in primary care clinics, leading to low rates of stage-appropriate monitoring and treatment. Our objective was to determine whether electronic problem list documentation of CKD is associated with monitoring and treatment. Methods: This is a cross-sectional observational study of patients with stage 3 or 4 CKD, defined as two past estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) 15-60 mL/min/1.73 m2 separated by 90 days and collected between 2007-2008. We examined the association of problem list documentation with: 1) serum eGFR monitoring test, 2) urine protein or albumin monitoring test, 3) an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ACE/ARB) prescription, 4) mean systolic blood pressure (BP), and 5) BP control. Results: Out of 3,149 patients with stage 3 or 4 CKD, only 16% of patients had CKD documented on the problem list. After adjustment for eGFR, gender, and race/ethnicity and after clustering by physician, problem list documentation of CKD was associated with serum eGFR testing (97% with problem list documentation vs. 94% without problem list documentation, p = 0.02) and urine protein testing (47% with problem list documentation vs. 40% without problem list documentation, p = 0.04). After adjustment, problem list documentation was not associated with ACE/ARB prescription, mean systolic BP, or BP control. Conclusions: Documentation of CKD on the electronic problem list is rare. Patients with CKD documentation have better stage-appropriate monitoring of the disease, but do not have higher rates of blood pressure treatment or better blood pressure control. Interventions aimed at increasing documentation of CKD on the problem list may improve stage-appropriate monitoring, but may not improve clinical outcomes.

Background: Primary care physicians (PCPs) typically manage early chronic kidney disease (CKD), but recent guidelines recommend nephrology co-management for some patients with stage 3 CKD and all patients with stage 4 CKD. We sought to compare quality of care for co-managed patients to solo managed patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis. Patients included in the study were adults who visited a PCP during 2009 with laboratory evidence of CKD in the preceding two years, defined as two estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) between 15–59 mL/min/1.73 m2 separated by 90 days. We assessed process measures (serum eGFR test, urine protein/albumin test, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker [ACE/ARB] prescription, and several tests monitoring for complications) and intermediate clinical outcomes (mean blood pressure and blood pressure control) and performed subgroup analyses by CKD stage. Results: Of 3118 patients, 11 % were co-managed by a nephrologist. Co-management was associated with younger age (69 vs. 74 years), male gender (46 % vs. 34 %), minority race/ethnicity (black 32 % vs. 22 %; Hispanic 13 % vs. 8 %), hypertension (75 % vs. 66 %), diabetes (42 % vs. 26 %), and more PCP visits (5.0 vs. 3.9; p < 0.001 for all comparisons). After adjustment, co-management was associated with serum eGFR test (98 % vs. 94 %, p = <0.0001), urine protein/albumin test (82 % vs 36 %, p < 0.0001), and ACE/ARB prescription (77 % vs. 69 %, p = 0.03). Co-management was associated with monitoring for anemia and metabolic bone disease, but was not associated with lipid monitoring, differences in mean blood pressure (133/69 mmHg vs. 131/70 mmHg, p > 0.50) or blood pressure control. A subgroup analysis of Stage 4 CKD patients did not show a significant association between co-management and ACE/ARB prescription (80 % vs. 73 %, p = 0.26). Conclusion: For stage 3 and 4 CKD patients, nephrology co-management was associated with increased stage-appropriate monitoring and ACE/ARB prescribing, but not improved blood pressure control.