Sankar D Navaneethan1,2, Julia M Akeroyd3,4, David Ramsey5, Sarah T Ahmed3, Shiva Raj Mishra5, Laura A Petersen3, Paul Muntner6, Christie Ballantyne7,8, Wolfgang C Winkelmayer9, Venkat Ramanathan9,2, Salim S Virani3,4,7,8. 1. Selzman Institute for Kidney Health, Section of Nephrology, sankar.navaneethan@bcm.edu. 2. Section of Nephrology. 3. Health Policy, Quality and Informatics Program, Health Services Research and Development Center for Innovations, and. 4. Section of Health Services Research, and. 5. Center for Longitudinal and Lifecourse Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; and. 6. Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 7. Section of Cardiology, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas. 8. Section of Cardiovascular Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 9. Selzman Institute for Kidney Health, Section of Nephrology.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Facility-level variation has been reported among veterans receiving care for various diseases. We studied the frequency and facility-level variations of guideline-recommended practices in patients with diabetes and CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Patients with diabetes and concomitant CKD (eGFR 15-59 ml/min per 1.73 m2, measured twice, 90 days apart) receiving care in 130 facilities across the Veterans Affairs Health Care System were included (n=281,223). We studied the proportions of patients (facility-level) receiving recommended core measures and facility-level variations of these study outcomes using median rate ratios, adjusting for various patient and provider-level factors. Median rate ratio quantifies the degree to which care may vary for similar patients receiving care at two randomly chosen facilities, with <1 being no variation and >1.2 as substantial variation between the facilities. Study outcomes included measurement of urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio/urine protein-to-creatinine ratio and blood hemoglobin concentration, prescription of statins and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, BP<140/90 mm Hg, and referral to a Veterans Affairs nephrologist (only for those with eGFR<30 ml/min per 1.73 m2). RESULTS: Among those with eGFR 30-59 ml/min per 1.73 m2, proportion of patients receiving recommended core measures (median and interquartile range across facilities) were 37% (22%-47%) for urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio/urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, 74% (72%-79%) for hemoglobin measurement, 66% (62%-69%) for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker prescription, 85% (74%-87%) for statin prescription, 47% (42%-53%) for achieving BP<140/90 mm Hg, and 13% (7%-16%) for meeting all outcome measures. Adjusted median rate ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 5.2 (4.1 to 6.4), 2.4 (2.1 to 2.6), 1.3 (1.2 to 1.3), 1.2 (1.2 to 1.3), 1.4 (1.3 to 1.4), and 4.1 (3.3 to 5.0), respectively. Median rate ratios were qualitatively similar in an analysis restricted to those with eGFR 15-29 ml/min per 1.73 m2. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with diabetes and CKD, at facility-level, ordering of laboratory tests, and scheduling of nephrology referrals in eligible patients remains suboptimal, with substantial variations across facilities.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Facility-level variation has been reported among veterans receiving care for various diseases. We studied the frequency and facility-level variations of guideline-recommended practices in patients with diabetes and CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Patients with diabetes and concomitant CKD (eGFR 15-59 ml/min per 1.73 m2, measured twice, 90 days apart) receiving care in 130 facilities across the Veterans Affairs Health Care System were included (n=281,223). We studied the proportions of patients (facility-level) receiving recommended core measures and facility-level variations of these study outcomes using median rate ratios, adjusting for various patient and provider-level factors. Median rate ratio quantifies the degree to which care may vary for similar patients receiving care at two randomly chosen facilities, with <1 being no variation and >1.2 as substantial variation between the facilities. Study outcomes included measurement of urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio/urine protein-to-creatinine ratio and blood hemoglobin concentration, prescription of statins and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, BP<140/90 mm Hg, and referral to a Veterans Affairs nephrologist (only for those with eGFR<30 ml/min per 1.73 m2). RESULTS: Among those with eGFR 30-59 ml/min per 1.73 m2, proportion of patients receiving recommended core measures (median and interquartile range across facilities) were 37% (22%-47%) for urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio/urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, 74% (72%-79%) for hemoglobin measurement, 66% (62%-69%) for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker prescription, 85% (74%-87%) for statin prescription, 47% (42%-53%) for achieving BP<140/90 mm Hg, and 13% (7%-16%) for meeting all outcome measures. Adjusted median rate ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 5.2 (4.1 to 6.4), 2.4 (2.1 to 2.6), 1.3 (1.2 to 1.3), 1.2 (1.2 to 1.3), 1.4 (1.3 to 1.4), and 4.1 (3.3 to 5.0), respectively. Median rate ratios were qualitatively similar in an analysis restricted to those with eGFR 15-29 ml/min per 1.73 m2. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with diabetes and CKD, at facility-level, ordering of laboratory tests, and scheduling of nephrology referrals in eligible patients remains suboptimal, with substantial variations across facilities.
Authors: Michael J Fischer; Kevin T Stroupe; James S Kaufman; Ann M O'Hare; Margaret M Browning; Zhiping Huo; Denise M Hynes Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Kunihiro Matsushita; Marije van der Velde; Brad C Astor; Mark Woodward; Andrew S Levey; Paul E de Jong; Josef Coresh; Ron T Gansevoort Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Daniel Murphy; Charles E McCulloch; Feng Lin; Tanushree Banerjee; Jennifer L Bragg-Gresham; Mark S Eberhardt; Hal Morgenstern; Meda E Pavkov; Rajiv Saran; Neil R Powe; Chi-Yuan Hsu Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ravi S Hira; Kevin Kennedy; Vijay Nambi; Hani Jneid; Mahboob Alam; Sukhdeep S Basra; P Michael Ho; Anita Deswal; Christie M Ballantyne; Laura A Petersen; Salim S Virani Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Laura Mariani; Bénédicte Stengel; Christian Combe; Ziad A Massy; Helmut Reichel; Danilo Fliser; Roberto Pecoits-Filho; Antonio A Lopes; Kunihiro Yamagata; Takashi Wada; Michelle M Y Wong; Elodie Speyer; Friedrich K Port; Ronald L Pisoni; Bruce M Robinson Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Ladan Golestaneh; Paula J Alvarez; Nancy L Reaven; Susan E Funk; Karen J McGaughey; Alain Romero; Melanie S Brenner; Macaulay Onuigbo Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Carl P Walther; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Peter A Richardson; Salim S Virani; Sankar D Navaneethan Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 7.186
Authors: Christina Bradshaw; I-Chun Thomas; Maria E Montez-Rath; Karl A Lorenz; Steven M Asch; John T Leppert; Virginia Wang; Ann M O'Hare; Manjula Kurella Tamura Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-01-04
Authors: Nikita Stempniewicz; Joseph A Vassalotti; John K Cuddeback; Elizabeth Ciemins; Amy Storfer-Isser; Yingying Sang; Kunihiro Matsushita; Shoshana H Ballew; Alex R Chang; Andrew S Levey; Robert A Bailey; Jesse Fishman; Josef Coresh Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 17.152