BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Early detection of CKD is important for slowing progression to renal failure and preventing cardiovascular events. Automated laboratory reporting of estimated GFR (eGFR) has been introduced in many health systems to improve CKD recognition, but its effect in large, United States-based health systems remains unclear. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Using Veterans Affairs (VA) laboratory and administrative data, two nonoverlapping national cohorts of patients receiving care in VA medical centers before (n=66,323) and after (n=16,670) implementation of automated eGFR reporting between 2004 and 2010 were identified. Recognition was assessed by the presence of new CKD diagnostic codes, use of additional diagnostic testing, outpatient nephrology visits, or overall CKD recognition (receipt of at least one of these outcomes) for each patient during the 12-month period after their first eligible creatinine or eGFR laboratory result. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess change before and after automated eGFR reporting. RESULTS: Overall CKD recognition increased from 22.1% of veterans before eGFR reporting to 27.5% in the post-eGFR reporting period (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.27; P<0.001). Higher overall CKD recognition was driven largely by increased documentation of CKD diagnosis codes in medical records (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.41; P<0.001) and diagnostic testing for CKD (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.24; P<0.01) rather than outpatient nephrology consultation. Automated eGFR reporting was not associated with greater CKD recognition among black or older patients (P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Automated eGFR laboratory reporting improved documentation of CKD diagnoses but had no effect on nephrology consultation. These findings suggest that to advance CKD care, further strategies are needed to ensure appropriate follow-up evaluation to confirm and effectively evaluate CKD.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Early detection of CKD is important for slowing progression to renal failure and preventing cardiovascular events. Automated laboratory reporting of estimated GFR (eGFR) has been introduced in many health systems to improve CKD recognition, but its effect in large, United States-based health systems remains unclear. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Using Veterans Affairs (VA) laboratory and administrative data, two nonoverlapping national cohorts of patients receiving care in VA medical centers before (n=66,323) and after (n=16,670) implementation of automated eGFR reporting between 2004 and 2010 were identified. Recognition was assessed by the presence of new CKD diagnostic codes, use of additional diagnostic testing, outpatient nephrology visits, or overall CKD recognition (receipt of at least one of these outcomes) for each patient during the 12-month period after their first eligible creatinine or eGFR laboratory result. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess change before and after automated eGFR reporting. RESULTS: Overall CKD recognition increased from 22.1% of veterans before eGFR reporting to 27.5% in the post-eGFR reporting period (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.27; P<0.001). Higher overall CKD recognition was driven largely by increased documentation of CKD diagnosis codes in medical records (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.41; P<0.001) and diagnostic testing for CKD (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.24; P<0.01) rather than outpatient nephrology consultation. Automated eGFR reporting was not associated with greater CKD recognition among black or older patients (P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Automated eGFR laboratory reporting improved documentation of CKD diagnoses but had no effect on nephrology consultation. These findings suggest that to advance CKD care, further strategies are needed to ensure appropriate follow-up evaluation to confirm and effectively evaluate CKD.
Authors: Daniel E Weiner; Hocine Tighiouart; Manish G Amin; Paul C Stark; Bonnie MacLeod; John L Griffith; Deeb N Salem; Andrew S Levey; Mark J Sarnak Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Lesley A Inker; Christopher H Schmid; Hocine Tighiouart; John H Eckfeldt; Harold I Feldman; Tom Greene; John W Kusek; Jane Manzi; Frederick Van Lente; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Josef Coresh; Andrew S Levey Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-07-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Khaled Abdel-Kader; Gary S Fischer; James R Johnston; Chen Gu; Charity G Moore; Mark L Unruh Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Euan Noble; David W Johnson; Nicholas Gray; Peter Hollett; Carmel M Hawley; Scott B Campbell; David W Mudge; Nicole M Isbel Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2008-07-16 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Luigi Tarantini; Giulia Barbati; Giovanni Cioffi; Finlay Aleck McAlister; Justin Adrian Ezekowitz; Carmine Mazzone; Giorgio Faganello; Giulia Russo; Enrico Franceschini Grisolia; Andrea Di Lenarda Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Jennifer L Alejo; Xun Luo; Allan B Massie; Macey L Henderson; Sandra R DiBrito; Jayme E Locke; Tanjala S Purnell; Brian J Boyarsky; Saad Anjum; Samantha E Halpern; Dorry L Segev Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: James B Wetmore; Jiannong Liu; Suying Li; Yan Hu; Yi Peng; David T Gilbertson; Allan J Collins Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Yuxiang Xie; Marlena Maziarz; Delphine S Tuot; Glenn M Chertow; Jonathan Himmelfarb; Yoshio N Hall Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Yun Jung Oh; Ran-Hui Cha; Seung Hwan Lee; Kyung Sang Yu; Satbyul Estella Kim; Ho Kim; Yon Su Kim Journal: Korean J Intern Med Date: 2016-01-13 Impact factor: 2.884
Authors: Kristine E Lynch; Ji Won Chang; Michael E Matheny; Alexander Goldfarb; Olga Efimova; Gregorio Coronado; Scott L DuVall Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2018-12-28 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Clarissa J Diamantidis; Sarah L Hale; Virginia Wang; Valerie A Smith; Sarah Hudson Scholle; Matthew L Maciejewski Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2019-09-14 Impact factor: 2.388