Abstract
BackgroundAcute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with poor health outcomes, including increased mortality and rehospitalisation. National policy and patient safety drivers have targeted AKI as an example to ensure safer transitions of care.AimTo establish guidance to promote high-quality transitions of care for adults following episodes of illness complicated by AKI.Design & settingAn appropriateness ratings evaluation was undertaken using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM). The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) AKI working group developed a range of clinical scenarios to help identify the necessary steps to be taken following discharge of a patient from secondary care into primary care in the UK.MethodA 10-person expert panel was convened to rate 819 clinical scenarios, testing the most appropriate time and action following hospital discharge. Specifically, the scenarios focused on determining the appropriateness and urgency for planning: an initial medication review; monitoring of kidney function; and assessment for albuminuria.ResultsTaking no action (that is, no medication review; no kidney monitoring; or no albuminuria testing) was rated inappropriate in all cases. In most scenarios, there was consensus that both the initial medication review and kidney function monitoring should take place within 1–2 weeks or 1 month, depending on clinical context. However, patients with heart failure and poor kidney recovery were rated to require expedited review. There was consensus that assessment for albuminuria should take place at 3 months after discharge following AKI.ConclusionSystems to support tailored and timely post-AKI discharge care are required, especially in high-risk populations, such as people with heart failure.
Highlights
Ten years ago, the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) report, Adding Insult to Injury, focused attention on the poor care surrounding Acute kidney injury (AKI).[1]
How this fits in Tackling the harms associated with AKI has been identified as a key priority to improve patient safety and health outcomes
RAND/UCLA consensus methodology was employed to navigate the challenge of overdiagnosis to maximise the utility of an AKI diagnosis, while minimising patient burden and reducing unnecessary clinical workload
Summary
The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) report, Adding Insult to Injury, focused attention on the poor care surrounding AKI.[1]. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with poor health outcomes, including increased mortality and rehospitalisation. National policy and patient safety drivers have targeted AKI as an example to ensure safer transitions of care
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
