Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Deficits in information transfer between hospital-based and primary-care physicians, the case of kidney disease: a cross-sectional study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Late recognition plays an important role in prognosis associated with kidney disease; thus, information transfer at hospital discharge regarding kidney disease is crucial. Whether it is notified in patients’ hospital discharge summary (HDS) is presently largely unknown.

Study design

Cross-sectional.

Setting and participants

The prevalence of kidney dysfunction [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 ml/min/1.73 m2] and its reporting to primary-care physicians from 26 units [11 surgery, 11 medical, 4 intensive care units (ICUs)] of a university hospital were analyzed in 14,000 hospitalizations.

Predictor

eGFR.

Outcome

Notification of kidney dysfunction in HDS.

Measurements

GFR was estimated from serum creatinine using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula.

Results

Kidney dysfunction was frequent (27.2 %) but infrequently notified in the main-body of the HDS (overall 25.3 %, medical 25 %, surgical 16.3 %, ICU 48.4 %) even when severe (eGFR 15–29.9 ml/min/1.73 m2 was notified in 68.8, 38.5, and 79.8 % of HDSs in medical, surgical and ICUs, respectively). Notification in the HDS conclusion was rare (overall 11.4 %, medical 9.8 %, surgical 8.4 %, ICU 27.5 %). Reporting remained low when eGFR remained abnormal at discharge (medical 35.8 %, surgical 22.5 %, ICU 62.2 %) but was worse for acute kidney injury (16.0, 17.1, and 37.7 %, respectively). The optimal eGFR cut-off for reporting was 39 ml/min/1.73 m2. Longer durations of hospitalization, greater numbers of creatinine measurements and of abnormal eGFR were associated with notification, regardless of the type of unit.

Limitations

Lack of data to define acute or chronic kidney injury with precision.

Conclusions

Kidney dysfunction is frequent in hospitalized patients but is usually not notified, even when severe or still present at discharge, suggesting that it is not considered important to disclose to primary-care physicians. This lack of information may decrease physicians’ awareness, and may affect continuity of care in patients with kidney dysfunction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kripalani SLF (2007) Deficits in communication and information transfer between hospital-based and primary care physicians: implications for patient safety and continuity of care. JAMA 297(8):831–841

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wang HE, Muntner P, Chertow GM, Warnock DG (2012) Acute kidney injury and mortality in hospitalized patients. Am J Nephrol 35(4):349–355

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Coca SG, Singanamala S, Parikh CR (2012) Chronic kidney disease after acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Kidney Int 81(5):442–448

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. James MT, Hemmelgarn BR, Tonelli M (2010) Early recognition and prevention of chronic kidney disease. Lancet 375(9722):1296–1309

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Go AS, Chertow GM, Fan D, McCulloch CE, Hsu C (2004) Chronic kidney disease and the risks of death, cardiovascular events, and hospitalization. N Engl J Med 351(13):1296–1305

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stevens LA, Fares G, Fleming J, Martin D, Murthy K, Stark PC, Uhlig K, Van Lente F, Levey AS (2005) Low rates of testing and diagnostic codes usage in a commercial clinical laboratory: evidence for lack of physician awareness of chronic kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 16(8):2439–2448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jungers P (2002) Late referral: loss of chance for the patient, loss of money for society. Nephrol Dial Transplant 17(3):371–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chan MR, Dall AT, Fletcher KE, Lu N, Trivedi H (2007) Outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease referred late to nephrologists: a meta-analysis. Am J Med 120(12):1063–1070

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Smart NA, Titus TT (2011) Outcomes of early versus late nephrology referral in chronic kidney disease: a systematic review. Am J Med 124(11):1073–1080.e2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Levey AS, Coresh J (2012) Chronic kidney disease. Lancet 379(9811):165–180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim DH, Kim M, Kim H, Kim YL, Kang CW, Kim NH, Kim YS, Lee JP (2013) Early referral to a nephrologist improved patient survival: prospective cohort study for end-stage renal disease in Korea. PLoS ONE 8(1):e55323

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Palevsky PM, Liu KD, Brophy PD, Chawla LS, Parikh CR, Thakar CV, Tolwani AJ, Waikar SS, Weisbord SD (2013) KDOQI US commentary on the 2012 KDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury. Am J Kidney Dis 61(5):649–672

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rothberg MB, Kehoe ED, Courtemanche AL, Kenosi T, Pekow PS, Brennan MJ, Mulhern JG, Braden GL (2008) Recognition and management of chronic kidney disease in an elderly ambulatory population. J Gen Intern Med 23(8):1125–1130

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gentile G, Postorino M, Mooring RD, De Angelis L, Manfreda VM, Ruffini F, Pioppo M, Quintaliani G (2009) Estimated GFR reporting is not sufficient to allow detection of chronic kidney disease in an Italian regional hospital. BMC Nephrol 10:24

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Guessous I, McClellan W, Vupputuri S, Wasse H (2009) Low documentation of chronic kidney disease among high-risk patients in a managed care population: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Nephrol 10:25

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. National Kidney Foundation (2002) K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis 39(Suppl 1):S1–S266

  17. Hemmelgarn BR, Zhang J (2010) Nephrology visits and health care resource use before and after reporting estimated glomerular filtration rate. JAMA 303(12):1151–1158

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Akbari A, Grimshaw J, Stacey D, Hogg W, Ramsay T, Cheng-Fitzpatrick M, Magner P, Bell R, Karpinski J (2012) Change in appropriate referrals to nephrologists after the introduction of automatic reporting of the estimated glomerular filtration rate. CMAJ 184(5):E269–E276

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Akbari ASP (2004) Detection of chronic kidney disease with laboratory reporting of estimated glomerular filtration rate and an educational program. Arch Intern Med 164(16):1788–1792

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Poggio ED, Nef PC, Wang X, Greene T, Van Lente F, Dennis VW, Hall PM (2005) Performance of the Cockcroft–Gault and modification of diet in renal disease equations in estimating GFR in ill hospitalized patients. Am J Kidney Dis 46(2):242–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service de Néphrologie-Immunologie Clinique, CHU de Tours, Hôpital Bretonneau, 37044, Tours, France

    Bénédicte Sautenet, Matthias Buchler & Jean-Michel Halimi

  2. Centre d’Investigation Clinique INSERM, CIC 1415, Tours, France

    Bénédicte Sautenet, Agnès Caille, Bruno Giraudeau & Julie Léger

  3. Université François-Rabelais, Tours, France

    Bénédicte Sautenet, Agnès Caille, Bruno Giraudeau, Matthias Buchler & Jean-Michel Halimi

  4. CHU de Tours, Laboratoire de Biochimie et Biologie Moléculaire, Tours, France

    Patrick Vourc’h

  5. EA 4245, Université François-Rabelais, Tours, France

    Matthias Buchler & Jean-Michel Halimi

Authors
  1. Bénédicte Sautenet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Agnès Caille
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruno Giraudeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Julie Léger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Patrick Vourc’h
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthias Buchler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jean-Michel Halimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bénédicte Sautenet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sautenet, B., Caille, A., Giraudeau, B. et al. Deficits in information transfer between hospital-based and primary-care physicians, the case of kidney disease: a cross-sectional study. J Nephrol 28, 563–570 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-015-0175-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-015-0175-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation