Primary care physicians' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to management of chronic kidney disease: A mixed methods study.

BackgroundGiven the high prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD), primary care physicians (PCPs) frequently manage early stage CKD. Nonetheless, there are challenges in providing optimal CKD care in the primary care setting. This study sought to understand PCPs' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to the optimal management of CKD.Study designMixed methods study.Settings and participantsCommunity-based PCPs in four US cities: Baltimore, MD; St. Louis, MO; Raleigh, NC and San Francisco, CA.MethodologyWe used a self-administered questionnaire and conducted 4 focus groups of PCPs (n = 8 PCPs/focus group) in each city to identify key barriers and facilitators to management of patients with CKD in primary care.Analytic approachWe conducted descriptive analyses of the survey data. Major themes were identified from audio-recorded interviews that were transcribed and coded by the research team.ResultsOf 32 participating PCPs, 31 (97%) had been in practice for >10 years, and 29 (91%) practiced in a non-academic setting. PCPs identified multiple barriers to managing CKD in primary care including at the level of the patient (e.g., low awareness of CKD, poor adherence to treatment recommendations), the provider (e.g., staying current with CKD guidelines), and the health care system (e.g., inflexible electronic medical record, limited time and resources). PCPs desired electronic prompts and lab decision support, concise guidelines, and healthcare financing reform to improve CKD care.ConclusionsPCPs face substantial but modifiable barriers in providing care to patients with CKD. Interventions that address these barriers and promote facilitative tools may improve PCPs' effectiveness and capacity to care for patients with CKD

Effect of primary care physicians' use of estimated glomerular filtration rate on the timing of their subspecialty referral decisions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Primary care providers' suboptimal recognition of the severity of chronic kidney disease (CKD) may contribute to untimely referrals of patients with CKD to subspecialty care. It is unknown whether U.S. primary care physicians' use of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) rather than serum creatinine to estimate CKD severity could improve the timeliness of their subspecialty referral decisions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a cross-sectional study of 154 United States primary care physicians to assess the effect of use of eGFR (versus creatinine) on the timing of their subspecialty referrals. Primary care physicians completed a questionnaire featuring questions regarding a hypothetical White or African American patient with progressing CKD. We asked primary care physicians to identify the serum creatinine and eGFR levels at which they would recommend patients like the hypothetical patient be referred for subspecialty evaluation. We assessed significant improvement in the timing [from eGFR < 30 to ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73m²) of their recommended referrals based on their use of creatinine versus eGFR.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Primary care physicians recommended subspecialty referrals later (CKD more advanced) when using creatinine versus eGFR to assess kidney function [median eGFR 32 versus 55 mL/min/1.73m², p < 0.001]. Forty percent of primary care physicians significantly improved the timing of their referrals when basing their recommendations on eGFR. Improved timing occurred more frequently among primary care physicians practicing in academic (versus non-academic) practices or presented with White (versus African American) hypothetical patients [adjusted percentage(95% CI): 70% (45-87) versus 37% (reference) and 57% (39-73) versus 25% (reference), respectively, both p ≤ 0.01).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Primary care physicians recommended subspecialty referrals earlier when using eGFR (versus creatinine) to assess kidney function. Enhanced use of eGFR by primary care physicians' could lead to more timely subspecialty care and improved clinical outcomes for patients with CKD.</p

Schizophrenia-associated somatic copy-number variants from 12,834 cases reveal recurrent NRXN1 and ABCB11 disruptions

While germline copy-number variants (CNVs) contribute to schizophrenia (SCZ) risk, the contribution of somatic CNVs (sCNVs)—present in some but not all cells—remains unknown. We identified sCNVs using blood-derived genotype arrays from 12,834 SCZ cases and 11,648 controls, filtering sCNVs at loci recurrently mutated in clonal blood disorders. Likely early-developmental sCNVs were more common in cases (0.91%) than controls (0.51%, p = 2.68e−4), with recurrent somatic deletions of exons 1–5 of the NRXN1 gene in five SCZ cases. Hi-C maps revealed ectopic, allele-specific loops forming between a potential cryptic promoter and non-coding cis-regulatory elements upon 5′ deletions in NRXN1. We also observed recurrent intragenic deletions of ABCB11, encoding a transporter implicated in anti-psychotic response, in five treatment-resistant SCZ cases and showed that ABCB11 is specifically enriched in neurons forming mesocortical and mesolimbic dopaminergic projections. Our results indicate potential roles of sCNVs in SCZ risk

Minding the gap and overlap: a literature review of fragmentation of primary care for chronic dialysis patients

Abstract Background Care coordination is a challenge for patients with kidney disease, who often see multiple providers to manage their associated complex chronic conditions. Much of the focus has been on primary care physician (PCP) and nephrologist collaboration in the early stages of chronic kidney disease, but less is known about the co-management of the patients in the end-stage of renal disease. We conducted a systematic review and synthesis of empirical studies on primary care services for dialysis patients. Methods Systematic literature search of MEDLINE/PubMED, CINAHL, and EmBase databases for studies, published until August 2015. Inclusion criteria included publications in English, empirical studies involving human subjects (e.g., patients, physicians), conducted in US and Canadian study settings that evaluated primary care services in the dialysis patient population. Results Fourteen articles examined three major themes of primary care services for dialysis patients: perceived roles of providers, estimated time in providing primary care, and the extent of dialysis patients’ use of primary care services. There was general agreement among providers that PCPs should be involved but time, appropriate roles, and miscommunication are potential barriers to good primary care for dialysis patients. Although many dialysis patients report having a PCP, the majority rely on primary care from their nephrologists. Studies using administrative data found lower rates of preventive care services than found in studies relying on provider or patient self-report. Discussion The extant literature revealed gaps and opportunities to optimize primary care services for dialysis patients, foreshadowing the challenges and promise of Accountable Care / End-Stage Seamless Care Organizations and care coordination programs currently underway in the United States to improve clinical and logistical complexities of care for this commonly overlooked population. Studies linking the relationship between providers and patients’ receipt of primary care to outcomes will serve as important comparisons to the nascent care models for ESRD patients, whose value is yet to be determined

Improving Primary Care Delivery for Patients Receiving Maintenance Hemodialysis

The beneficial impact of primary care, focused on all aspects of a patients\u27 health (rather than a disease-specific focus) is well established. Recognized benefits include greater receipt of preventive care and counseling, lower utilization of emergency care and hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive conditions, and decreased early mortality. While the importance of primary care and care coordination at the primary care-specialty interface is well recognized, the role of primary care within traditional and emerging care models for patients receiving maintenance in-center hemodialysis remains ill-defined. In this perspective article, we will describe: 1) the role of primary care for patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis and the current evidence regarding the receipt of primary care among those patients; 2) the key challenges to delivery of primary care for these complex patients, including suboptimal care coordination between nephrology and primary care providers (PCPs), the intensity of dialysis care, and the limited capacity of nephrologists and PCPs to meet the broad health needs of hemodialysis patients; 3) the potential strategies for improving the delivery of primary care for patients receiving hemodialysis; and 4) future research needs to improve primary care delivery for this high-risk population

Impact of pre-dialysis nephrology care engagement and decision-making on provider and patient action toward permanent vascular access

Abstract Background While catheters are often thought the result of emergency hemodialysis (HD) initiation among patients with little or no pre-dialysis nephrology care, the role of patient level of engagement in care and modality decision-making have not been fully explored. Methods This is a retrospective medical record review of adults (age 18–89 years) who received care in academically affiliated private practice, public hospital, or Veterans Administration settings prior to initiating HD with a catheter between 10/1/2011 and 9/30/2012. Primary predictors were level of patient engagement in nephrology care within 6 months of HD initiation and timing of modality decision-making. Primary outcomes were provider action (referral) and any patient action (evaluation by a vascular surgeon, vein mapping or vascular surgery) toward [arteriovenous fistula or graft, (AVF/AVG)] creation. Results Among 92 incident HD patients, 66% (n = 61) initiated HD via catheter, of whom 34% (n = 21) had ideal engagement in care but 42% (n = 25) had no documented decision. Providers referred 48% (n = 29) of patients for AVF/AVG, of whom 72% (n = 21) took any action. Ideal engagement in care predicted provider action (adjusted OR 13.7 [95% CI 1.08, 175.1], p = 0.04), but no level of engagement in care predicted patient action (p > 0.3). Compared to patients with no documented decision, those with documented decisions within 3, 3–12, or more than 12 months before initiating dialysis were more likely to have provider action toward AVF/AVG (adjusted OR [95% CI]: 9.0 [1.4,55.6], p = 0.2, 37.6 [3.3423.4] p = 0.003, and 4.8 [0.8, 30.6], p = 0.1, respectively); and patient action (adjusted OR [95% CI]: 18.7 [2.3, 149.0], p = 0.006, 20.4 [2.6, 160.0], p = 0.004, and 6.2 [0.9, 44.0], p = 0.07, respectively). Conclusions Timing of patient modality decision-making, but not level of engagement in pre-dialysis nephrology care, was predictive of patient and provider action toward AVF/AVG Interventions addressing patients’ psychological preparation for dialysis are needed.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/173571/1/12882_2021_Article_2264.pd