Lois G Kim1, Ben Caplin2, Faye Cleary1, Sally A Hull3, Kathryn Griffith4, David C Wheeler2, Dorothea Nitsch1. 1. Department of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 2. Centre for Nephrology, UCL Medical School, London, UK. 3. Clinical Effectiveness Group, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 4. Dr Price & Partners, University Health Centre, Heslington, York, UK.
Abstract
Background: Early diagnosis of chronic kidney disease (CKD) facilitates best management in primary care. Testing coverage of those at risk and translation into subsequent diagnostic coding will impact on observed CKD prevalence. Using initial data from 915 general practitioner (GP) practices taking part in a UK national audit, we seek to apply appropriate methods to identify outlying practices in terms of CKD stages 3-5 prevalence and diagnostic coding. Methods: We estimate expected numbers of CKD stages 3-5 cases in each practice, adjusted for key practice characteristics, and further inflate the control limits to account for overdispersion related to unobserved factors (including unobserved risk factors for CKD, and between-practice differences in coding and testing). Results: GP practice prevalence of coded CKD stages 3-5 ranges from 0.04 to 7.8%. Practices differ considerably in coding of CKD in individuals where CKD is indicated following testing (ranging from 0 to 97% of those with and glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ). After adjusting for risk factors and overdispersion, the number of 'extreme' practices is reduced from 29 to 2.6% for the low-coded CKD prevalence outcome, from 21 to 1% for high-uncoded CKD stage and from 22 to 2.4% for low total (coded and uncoded) CKD prevalence. Thirty-one practices are identified as outliers for at least one of these outcomes. These can then be categorized into practices needing to address testing, coding or data storage/transfer issues. Conclusions: GP practice prevalence of coded CKD shows wide variation. Accounting for overdispersion is crucial in providing useful information about outlying practices for CKD prevalence.
Background: Early diagnosis of chronic kidney disease (CKD) facilitates best management in primary care. Testing coverage of those at risk and translation into subsequent diagnostic coding will impact on observed CKD prevalence. Using initial data from 915 general practitioner (GP) practices taking part in a UK national audit, we seek to apply appropriate methods to identify outlying practices in terms of CKD stages 3-5 prevalence and diagnostic coding. Methods: We estimate expected numbers of CKD stages 3-5 cases in each practice, adjusted for key practice characteristics, and further inflate the control limits to account for overdispersion related to unobserved factors (including unobserved risk factors for CKD, and between-practice differences in coding and testing). Results: GP practice prevalence of coded CKD stages 3-5 ranges from 0.04 to 7.8%. Practices differ considerably in coding of CKD in individuals where CKD is indicated following testing (ranging from 0 to 97% of those with and glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ). After adjusting for risk factors and overdispersion, the number of 'extreme' practices is reduced from 29 to 2.6% for the low-coded CKD prevalence outcome, from 21 to 1% for high-uncoded CKD stage and from 22 to 2.4% for low total (coded and uncoded) CKD prevalence. Thirty-one practices are identified as outliers for at least one of these outcomes. These can then be categorized into practices needing to address testing, coding or data storage/transfer issues. Conclusions: GP practice prevalence of coded CKD shows wide variation. Accounting for overdispersion is crucial in providing useful information about outlying practices for CKD prevalence.
Authors: Lois G Kim; Faye Cleary; David C Wheeler; Ben Caplin; Dorothea Nitsch; Sally A Hull Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Patrick Bidulka; Jemima Scott; David Adlam; Dorothea Nitsch; Dominic M Taylor; Udaya Udayaraj; Fergus Caskey; Lucy Teece; Michael Sweeting; John Deanfield; Mark de Belder; Spiros Denaxas; Clive Weston Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Hugh Gallagher; Jennifer Dumbleton; Tom Maishman; Amy Whitehead; Michael V Moore; Ahmet Fuat; David Fitzmaurice; Robert A Henderson; Joanne Lord; Kathryn E Griffith; Paul Stevens; Maarten W Taal; Diane Stevenson; Simon D Fraser; Mark Lown; Christopher J Hawkey; Paul J Roderick Journal: Trials Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Thomas J Wilkinson; Joanne Miksza; Francesco Zaccardi; Claire Lawson; Andrew C Nixon; Hannah M L Young; Kamlesh Khunti; Alice C Smith Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 12.063