Measuring patients' experience with renal services in the UK: development and validation of the Kidney PREM.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience is a recognized aspect of quality of care for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but current patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) only focus on dialysis care. We developed and validated the Kidney PREM to assess patients' experience with renal services in secondary care for any CKD stage or treatment (transplant, haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis). METHODS: We developed the Kidney PREM in two phases, informed by a multidisciplinary expert group to ensure face validity. We organized three national data collections (2016-8) to investigate item response profiles and to conduct exploratory and confirmatory analyses to assess internal consistency. We also explored content validity in cognitive interviews and evaluated test-retest reliability. Finally, we developed the Kidney PREM Short Form for more frequent measurement of patient experience to inform local service improvements. RESULTS: We analysed 32 959 responses across data collections, with the 2018 collection covering all 71 UK renal centres. The Kidney PREM final version consisted of 38 items grouped into 13 themes, all pertaining to one underlying dimension reflecting the construct of 'patient experience' with high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.94). The Kidney PREM Short Form consisted of 15 items across the same 13 themes. CONCLUSIONS: The Kidney PREM supports the collection of reliable information on patient experience that people with CKD consider relevant, regardless of CKD stage or treatment modality. Kidney PREM data have the potential to guide local and national initiatives to improve patients' experiences with renal services in the UK and other countries.

Contributions of treatment centre and patient characteristics to patient-reported experience of haemodialysis: a national cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relative importance of patient and centre level factors in determining self-reported experience of care in patients with advanced kidney disease treated by maintenance haemodialysis (HD). DESIGN: Analysis of data from a cross sectional national survey; the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) national Kidney patient-reported experience measure (PREM) survey (2018). Centre-level data were obtained from the UKRR report (2018). SETTING: National survey of patients with advanced kidney disease receiving treatment with maintenance HD in UK renal centres in 2018. PARTICIPANTS: The Kidney PREM was distributed to all UK renal centres by the UKRR in May 2018. Each centre invited patients receiving outpatient treatment for kidney disease to complete the PREM. These included patients with chronic kidney disease, those receiving dialysis-both HD and peritoneal dialysis, and those with a functioning kidney transplant. There were no formal inclusion/exclusion criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Kidney PREM has 38 questions in 13 subscales. Responses were captured using a 7-point Likert scale (never 1, always 7). The primary outcome of interest was the mean PREM score calculated across all questions. Multilevel modelling was used to determine the proportion of variation of the mean PREM score across centres due to patient-related and centre-related factors. RESULTS: There were records for 8253 HD patients (61% men, 77% white) from 69 renal centres (9-710 patients per centre). There was significant variation in mean PREM score across centres (5.35-6.53). In the multivariable analysis there was some variation in relation to both patient- and centre-level factors but these contributed little to explaining the overall variation. However, multilevel modelling showed that the overwhelming proportion of the explained variance (45%) was explained by variation between centres (40%), only a small proportion of which is identified by measured factors. Only 5% of the variation was related to patient-level factors. CONCLUSIONS: Centre rather than patient characteristics determine the experience of care of patients receiving HD. Further work is required to define the characteristics of the treating centre which determine patient experience.

The future for diagnostic tests of acute kidney injury in critical care: evidence synthesis, care pathway analysis and research prioritisation.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is highly prevalent in hospital inpatient populations, leading to significant mortality and morbidity, reduced quality of life and high short- and long-term health-care costs for the NHS. New diagnostic tests may offer an earlier diagnosis or improved care, but evidence of benefit to patients and of value to the NHS is required before national adoption. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential for AKI in vitro diagnostic tests to enhance the NHS care of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and identify an efficient supporting research strategy. DATA SOURCES: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, The Cochrane Library databases, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, MEDLINE, metaRegister of Current Controlled Trials, PubMed and Web of Science databases from their inception dates until September 2014 (review 1), November 2015 (review 2) and July 2015 (economic model). Details of databases used for each review and coverage dates are listed in the main report. REVIEW METHODS: The AKI-Diagnostics project included horizon scanning, systematic reviewing, meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity, appraisal of analytical validity, care pathway analysis, model-based lifetime economic evaluation from a UK NHS perspective and value of information (VOI) analysis. RESULTS: The horizon-scanning search identified 152 potential tests and biomarkers. Three tests, Nephrocheck® (Astute Medical, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA), NGAL and cystatin C, were subjected to detailed review. The meta-analysis was limited by variable reporting standards, study quality and heterogeneity, but sensitivity was between 0.54 and 0.92 and specificity was between 0.49 and 0.95 depending on the test. A bespoke critical appraisal framework demonstrated that analytical validity was also poorly reported in many instances. In the economic model the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from £11,476 to £19,324 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with a probability of cost-effectiveness between 48% and 54% when tests were compared with current standard care. LIMITATIONS: The major limitation in the evidence on tests was the heterogeneity between studies in the definitions of AKI and the timing of testing. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic tests for AKI in the ICU offer the potential to improve patient care and add value to the NHS, but cost-effectiveness remains highly uncertain. Further research should focus on the mechanisms by which a new test might change current care processes in the ICU and the subsequent cost and QALY implications. The VOI analysis suggested that further observational research to better define the prevalence of AKI developing in the ICU would be worthwhile. A formal randomised controlled trial of biomarker use linked to a standardised AKI care pathway is necessary to provide definitive evidence on whether or not adoption of tests by the NHS would be of value. STUDY REGISTRATION: The systematic review within this study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013919. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

UK Renal Registry 13th Annual Report (December 2010): Chapter 16: memories of changes in renal care over three decades--the human perspective on registry statistics.

INTRODUCTION: This is a personal memory of 35 years of renal replacement therapy charting the changes in care through that time. METHOD: The personal reminiscences were augmented by the recollections of other patients and staff from the time. RESULTS: Major changes are charted in: the selection of patients especially children, the care of children, approaches to diet, methods of dialysis, transplant techniques and immunosuppression. Attitudes towards care and lifestyle possibilities have become more liberal for patients. CONCLUSION: Much has changed, mainly for the better and some old ideas have come back into fashion. Long-term patients have been through very difficult experiences and might have strongly formed opinions about their treatment as a result: perhaps staff should listen to these patients and learn from their wealth of experience.