Dannielle McBride1, Daniel Dohan2, Margaret A Handley3, Neil R Powe3, Delphine S Tuot4. 1. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 2. Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, CA; Department of Anthropology, History and Social Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine at San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, CA; Center for Vulnerable Populations, San Francisco General Hospital, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 4. Division of Nephrology at San Francisco General Hospital, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Electronic address: delphine.tuot@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic disease registries have been successful at promoting the delivery of guideline-concordant primary care for patients with diabetes and hypertension, but not for chronic kidney disease (CKD). To understand whether a registry could be designed to improve CKD management in primary care, we explored primary care provider attitudes about the benefits (or lack thereof) of a CKD registry compared with other chronic diseases and the key facilitators of successfully implementing a CKD registry in safety-net primary care. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative, using semistructured interviews. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: We conducted and recorded semistructured 1-hour interviews with medical directors and quality improvement champions from safety-net adult primary care clinics in San Francisco. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Recordings were transcribed and analyzed using a grounded theory approach until thematic saturation was achieved. RESULTS: 20 primary care providers were interviewed. 4 themes relevant to the development of a successful CKD registry for safety-net primary care were identified: (1) provider beliefs that a CKD registry could aid in the delivery of team-based high-quality CKD care; (2) clinic workflow redesign and staffing are key facilitators to successful implementation of a CKD registry; (3) unique complexities of CKD, such as varying etiologies, may limit the use of a CKD registry by nonphysicians; and (4) a CKD registry is aligned with current primary care priorities and health care delivery strategies. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size and reliance on clinician leaders within one health care delivery system. CONCLUSIONS: A CKD registry directed at the entire health care team, with the functionality to track, standardize, and enhance CKD care through decision support, has the potential to improve the management of CKD in safety-net primary care settings. These data directly informed the development of a CKD registry in these settings in San Francisco.
BACKGROUND: Chronic disease registries have been successful at promoting the delivery of guideline-concordant primary care for patients with diabetes and hypertension, but not for chronic kidney disease (CKD). To understand whether a registry could be designed to improve CKD management in primary care, we explored primary care provider attitudes about the benefits (or lack thereof) of a CKD registry compared with other chronic diseases and the key facilitators of successfully implementing a CKD registry in safety-net primary care. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative, using semistructured interviews. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: We conducted and recorded semistructured 1-hour interviews with medical directors and quality improvement champions from safety-net adult primary care clinics in San Francisco. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Recordings were transcribed and analyzed using a grounded theory approach until thematic saturation was achieved. RESULTS: 20 primary care providers were interviewed. 4 themes relevant to the development of a successful CKD registry for safety-net primary care were identified: (1) provider beliefs that a CKD registry could aid in the delivery of team-based high-quality CKD care; (2) clinic workflow redesign and staffing are key facilitators to successful implementation of a CKD registry; (3) unique complexities of CKD, such as varying etiologies, may limit the use of a CKD registry by nonphysicians; and (4) a CKD registry is aligned with current primary care priorities and health care delivery strategies. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size and reliance on clinician leaders within one health care delivery system. CONCLUSIONS: A CKD registry directed at the entire health care team, with the functionality to track, standardize, and enhance CKD care through decision support, has the potential to improve the management of CKD in safety-net primary care settings. These data directly informed the development of a CKD registry in these settings in San Francisco.
Authors: Adrienne S Allen; John P Forman; E John Orav; David W Bates; Bradley M Denker; Thomas D Sequist Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: William M McClellan; Britt B Newsome; Leslie A McClure; George Howard; Nataliya Volkova; Paul Audhya; David G Warnock Journal: Am J Nephrol Date: 2010-05-31 Impact factor: 3.754
Authors: Sankar D Navaneethan; Stacey E Jolly; Jesse D Schold; Susana Arrigain; Welf Saupe; John Sharp; Jennifer Lyons; James F Simon; Martin J Schreiber; Anil Jain; Joseph V Nally Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-11-04 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Mark J Sarnak; Tom Greene; Xuelei Wang; Gerald Beck; John W Kusek; Allan J Collins; Andrew S Levey Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2005-03-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Lesley A Stevens; Christopher H Schmid; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Alejandro F Castro; Harold I Feldman; John W Kusek; Paul Eggers; Frederick Van Lente; Tom Greene; Josef Coresh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sree K Venuthurupalli; Wendy E Hoy; Helen G Healy; Anne Salisbury; Robert G Fassett Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: J A Green; P L Ephraim; F F Hill-Briggs; T Browne; T S Strigo; C L Hauer; R A Stametz; J D Darer; U D Patel; K Lang-Lindsey; B L Bankes; S A Bolden; P Danielson; S Ruff; L Schmidt; A Swoboda; P Woods; B Vinson; D Littlewood; G Jackson; J F Pendergast; J St Clair Russell; K Collins; E Norfolk; I D Bucaloiu; S Kethireddy; C Collins; D Davis; J dePrisco; D Malloy; C J Diamantidis; S Fulmer; J Martin; D Schatell; N Tangri; A Sees; C Siegrist; J Breed; A Medley; E Graboski; J Billet; M Hackenberg; D Singer; S Stewart; A Alkon; N A Bhavsar; L Lewis-Boyer; C Martz; C Yule; R C Greer; M Saunders; B Cameron; L E Boulware Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Delphine S Tuot; Charles E McCulloch; Alexandra Velasquez; Dean Schillinger; Chi-Yuan Hsu; Margaret Handley; Neil R Powe Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Raquel C Greer; Jessica M Ameling; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Bernard G Jaar; Vanessa Grubbs; Carrie E Andrews; Patti Ephraim; Neil R Powe; Julia Lewis; Ebele Umeukeje; Luis Gimenez; Sam James; L Ebony Boulware Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2015-03-28 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Aminu K Bello; Paul E Ronksley; Navdeep Tangri; Alexander Singer; Allan Grill; Dorothea Nitsch; John A Queenan; Cliff Lindeman; Boglarka Soos; Elizabeth Freiheit; Delphine Tuot; Dee Mangin; Neil Drummond Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Adrienne Strait; Alexandra Velasquez; Margaret A Handley; Karen Leong; Adriana Najmabadi; Neil R Powe; Delphine S Tuot Journal: Clin Kidney J Date: 2017-12-20
Authors: Delphine S Tuot; Alexandra Velasquez; Charles E McCulloch; Tanushree Banerjee; Yunnuo Zhu; Chi-yuan Hsu; Margaret Handley; Dean Schillinger; Neil R Powe Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 2.388