BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a growing public health problem worldwide. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) has been advocated as a means to detect CKD. In January 2006, community laboratories in Ontario, Canada, began to report eGFR values along with every serum creatinine result. The present study sought to investigate the impact of eGFR reporting on nephrology referrals and patient outcome. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of referrals to an adult general nephrology clinic 24 months before and after eGFR reporting took effect. RESULTS: eGFR reporting was associated with a significant rise in the number of referrals (1,330-1,496, p = 0.009), a 33% rise in patient waiting time (from 75 to 100 days, p < 0.001), and an increase in nephrologists' workload. Patients referred after eGFR reporting were older, but suffered from fewer comorbidities such as hypertension and vascular disease. There was an increase in the number of patients referred with stage 3 CKD, but a drop in the proportion of stage 4 and 5 CKD referrals and no change in time to renal replacement therapy. CONCLUSION: Laboratory reporting of eGFR increased nephrology referral volume, patient waiting times, and nephrologists' workload, without a demonstrable benefit in terms of detection and referral of severe (stage 4 and 5) CKD, nor in the reduction of end-stage renal disease frequency.
BACKGROUND:Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a growing public health problem worldwide. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) has been advocated as a means to detect CKD. In January 2006, community laboratories in Ontario, Canada, began to report eGFR values along with every serum creatinine result. The present study sought to investigate the impact of eGFR reporting on nephrology referrals and patient outcome. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of referrals to an adult general nephrology clinic 24 months before and after eGFR reporting took effect. RESULTS: eGFR reporting was associated with a significant rise in the number of referrals (1,330-1,496, p = 0.009), a 33% rise in patient waiting time (from 75 to 100 days, p < 0.001), and an increase in nephrologists' workload. Patients referred after eGFR reporting were older, but suffered from fewer comorbidities such as hypertension and vascular disease. There was an increase in the number of patients referred with stage 3 CKD, but a drop in the proportion of stage 4 and 5 CKD referrals and no change in time to renal replacement therapy. CONCLUSION: Laboratory reporting of eGFR increased nephrology referral volume, patient waiting times, and nephrologists' workload, without a demonstrable benefit in terms of detection and referral of severe (stage 4 and 5) CKD, nor in the reduction of end-stage renal disease frequency.
Authors: Jay Hingwala; Sandip Bhangoo; Brett Hiebert; Manish M Sood; Claudio Rigatto; Navdeep Tangri; Paul Komenda Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2014-05-22
Authors: Jay Hingwala; Peter Wojciechowski; Brett Hiebert; Joe Bueti; Claudio Rigatto; Paul Komenda; Navdeep Tangri Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2017-08-09
Authors: Yeli Wang; Francis Ngoc Hoang Long Nguyen; John C Allen; Jasmine Quan Lan Lew; Ngiap Chuan Tan; Tazeen H Jafar Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Kenneth Scott Brimble; Philip Boll; Allan K Grill; Amber Molnar; Danielle M Nash; Amit Garg; Ayub Akbari; Peter G Blake; David Perkins Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-02-16 Impact factor: 2.692