AIM: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common and presents an increasing burden to patients and health services. However, the optimal model of care for patients with CKD is unclear. We systematically reviewed the clinical effectiveness of different models of care for the management of CKD. METHODS: A comprehensive search of eight databases was undertaken for articles published from 1992 to 2016. We included randomized controlled trials that assessed any model of care in the management of adults with pre-dialysis CKD, reporting renal, cardiovascular, mortality and other outcomes. Data extraction and quality assessment was carried out independently by two authors. RESULTS: Results were summarized narratively. Nine articles (seven studies) were included. Four models of care were identified: nurse-led, multidisciplinary specialist team, pharmacist-led and self-management. Nurse and pharmacist-led care reported improved rates of prescribing of drugs relevant to CKD. Heterogeneity was high between studies and all studies were at high risk of bias. Nurse-led care and multidisciplinary specialist care were associated with small improvements in blood pressure control. CONCLUSION: Evidence of long term improvements in renal, cardiovascular or mortality endpoints was limited by short follow up. We found little published evidence about the effectiveness of different models of care to guide best practice for service design, although there was some evidence that models of care where health professionals deliver care according to a structured protocol or guideline may improve adherence to treatment targets.
AIM: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common and presents an increasing burden to patients and health services. However, the optimal model of care for patients with CKD is unclear. We systematically reviewed the clinical effectiveness of different models of care for the management of CKD. METHODS: A comprehensive search of eight databases was undertaken for articles published from 1992 to 2016. We included randomized controlled trials that assessed any model of care in the management of adults with pre-dialysis CKD, reporting renal, cardiovascular, mortality and other outcomes. Data extraction and quality assessment was carried out independently by two authors. RESULTS: Results were summarized narratively. Nine articles (seven studies) were included. Four models of care were identified: nurse-led, multidisciplinary specialist team, pharmacist-led and self-management. Nurse and pharmacist-led care reported improved rates of prescribing of drugs relevant to CKD. Heterogeneity was high between studies and all studies were at high risk of bias. Nurse-led care and multidisciplinary specialist care were associated with small improvements in blood pressure control. CONCLUSION: Evidence of long term improvements in renal, cardiovascular or mortality endpoints was limited by short follow up. We found little published evidence about the effectiveness of different models of care to guide best practice for service design, although there was some evidence that models of care where health professionals deliver care according to a structured protocol or guideline may improve adherence to treatment targets.
Authors: Tyler M Barrett; Jamie A Green; Raquel C Greer; Patti L Ephraim; Sarah Peskoe; Jane F Pendergast; Chelsie L Hauer; Tara S Strigo; Evan Norfolk; Ion Dan Bucaloiu; Clarissa J Diamantidis; Felicia F Hill-Briggs; Teri Browne; George L Jackson; L Ebony Boulware Journal: Kidney Med Date: 2020-06-15
Authors: Michelle D Smekal; Helen Tam-Tham; Juli Finlay; Maoliosa Donald; Chandra Thomas; Robert G Weaver; Robert R Quinn; Kin Tam; Braden J Manns; Marcello Tonelli; Aminu Bello; Navdeep Tangri; Brenda R Hemmelgarn Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: V Shane Pankratz; E Eunice Choi; Fares Qeadan; Donica Ghahate; Jeanette Bobelu; Robert G Nelson; Thomas Faber; Vallabh O Shah Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Janet E Jones; Sarah L Damery; Kerry Allen; David W Johnson; Mark Lambie; Els Holvoet; Simon J Davies Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 3.240