The QICKD study protocol: a cluster randomised trial to compare quality improvement interventions to lower systolic BP in chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care

BackgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) is a relatively newly recognised but common long-term condition affecting 5 to 10% of the population. Effective management of CKD, with emphasis on strict blood pressure (BP) control, reduces cardiovascular risk and slows the progression of CKD. There is currently an unprecedented rise in referral to specialist renal services, which are often located in tertiary centres, inconvenient for patients, and wasteful of resources. National and international CKD guidelines include quality targets for primary care. However, there have been no rigorous evaluations of strategies to implement these guidelines. This study aims to test whether quality improvement interventions improve primary care management of elevated BP in CKD, reduce cardiovascular risk, and slow renal disease progressionDesignCluster randomised controlled trial (CRT)MethodsThis three-armed CRT compares two well-established quality improvement interventions with usual practice. The two interventions comprise: provision of clinical practice guidelines with prompts and audit-based education.The study population will be all individuals with CKD from general practices in eight localities across England. Randomisation will take place at the level of the general practices. The intended sample (three arms of 25 practices) powers the study to detect a 3 mmHg difference in systolic BP between the different quality improvement interventions. An additional 10 practices per arm will receive a questionnaire to measure any change in confidence in managing CKD. Follow up will take place over two years. Outcomes will be measured using anonymised routinely collected data extracted from practice computer systems. Our primary outcome measure will be reduction of systolic BP in people with CKD and hypertension at two years. Secondary outcomes will include biomedical outcomes and markers of quality, including practitioner confidence in managing CKD.A small group of practices (n = 4) will take part in an in-depth process evaluation. We will use time series data to examine the natural history of CKD in the community. Finally, we will conduct an economic evaluation based on a comparison of the cost effectiveness of each intervention.Clinical Trials RegistrationISRCTN56023731. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier.

[1]  J M Bland,et al.  Analysis of a trial randomised in clusters , 1998, BMJ.

[2]  A. Bowling Research Methods in Health , 1998 .

[3]  M. Tinetti,et al.  Drugs and Falls in Older People: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis: II. Cardiac and Analgesic Drugs , 1999, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[4]  Ethan M Balk,et al.  K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. , 2002, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.

[5]  SIMON DE LUSIGNAN,et al.  Research Paper: Does Feedback Improve the Quality of Computerized Medical Records in Primary Care? , 2002, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[6]  R. Cumming,et al.  Interventions for preventing falls in elderly people. , 2003, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[7]  Dh Confidentiality: NHS Code of Practice , 2003 .

[8]  S de Lusignan,et al.  Managers See the Problems Associated with Coding Clinical Data as a Technical Issue whilst Clinicians also See Cultural Barriers , 2003, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[9]  Charles E McCulloch,et al.  Chronic kidney disease and the risks of death, cardiovascular events, and hospitalization. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  S de Lusignan,et al.  End-digit preference in blood pressure recordings of patients with ischaemic heart disease in primary care , 2004, Journal of Human Hypertension.

[11]  Deeb N Salem,et al.  Chronic kidney disease as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality: a pooled analysis of community-based studies. , 2004, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN.

[12]  J M Grimshaw,et al.  Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies , 2004, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[13]  Jeremy M Grimshaw,et al.  Selecting, presenting and delivering clinical guidelines: are there any “magic bullets”? , 2004, The Medical journal of Australia.

[14]  Marc Berg,et al.  Viewpoint Paper: Some Unintended Consequences of Information Technology in Health Care: The Nature of Patient Care Information System-related Errors , 2003, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[15]  H. Davies,et al.  How do we maximize the impact of the public reporting of quality of care? , 2004, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[16]  D. Bates,et al.  Comprehensive computerised primary care records are an essential component of any national health information strategy: report from an international consensus conference. , 2004, Informatics in primary care.

[17]  D. Altman,et al.  CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  L Doyal,et al.  Preserving moral quality in research, audit, and quality improvement , 2004, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[19]  Azeem Majeed,et al.  Which general practices have higher list inflation? An exploratory study. , 2005, Family practice.

[20]  Simon de Lusignan,et al.  Ensuring the Quality of Aggregated General Practice Data: Lessons from the Primary Care Data Quality Programme (PCDQ) , 2005, MIE.

[21]  S. de Lusignan,et al.  A system of metadata to control the process of query, aggregating, cleaning and analysing large datasets of primary care data. , 2005, Informatics in primary care.

[22]  D. Asch,et al.  The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information. , 2005, JAMA.

[23]  D. Ashby,et al.  Sample size for cluster randomized trials: effect of coefficient of variation of cluster size and analysis method. , 2006, International journal of epidemiology.

[24]  R. Vanholder Chronic kidney disease in adults--UK guidelines for identification, management and referral. , 2006, Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association.

[25]  Simon de Lusignan,et al.  Breaking the first law of informatics: the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) in the dock. , 2006, Informatics in primary care.

[26]  Simon de Lusignan,et al.  Routinely-collected general practice data are complex, but with systematic processing can be used for quality improvement and research. , 2006, Informatics in primary care.

[27]  Simon de Lusignan,et al.  Routinely collected general practice data: goldmines for research? A report of the European Federation for Medical Informatics Primary Care Informatics Working Group (EFMI PCIWG) from MIE2006, Maastricht, The Netherlands. , 2006, Informatics in primary care.

[28]  S. de Lusignan,et al.  The use of routinely collected computer data for research in primary care: opportunities and challenges. , 2006, Family practice.

[29]  S. de Lusignan,et al.  Chronic kidney disease: a new priority for primary care. , 2006, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[30]  S. de Lusignan,et al.  Audit-based education to reduce suboptimal management of cholesterol in primary care: a before and after study. , 2006, Journal of public health.

[31]  A. Garg,et al.  Chronic kidney disease and mortality risk: a systematic review. , 2006, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN.

[32]  S. de Lusignan,et al.  The cost of implementing UK guidelines for the management of chronic kidney disease. , 2007, Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association.

[33]  J. Hinde,et al.  Chronic kidney disease and mortality and morbidity among patients with established cardiovascular disease: a West of Ireland community-based cohort study. , 2007, Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association.

[34]  S de Lusignan,et al.  Chronic kidney disease management in the United Kingdom: NEOERICA project results. , 2007, Kidney international.

[35]  S. de Lusignan An Educational Intervention, Involving Feedback of Routinely Collected Computer Data, to Improve Cardiovascular Disease Management in UK Primary Care , 2007, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[36]  Pamela M Smith,et al.  Compliance With Joint National Committee 7 Guidelines in Hypertension Management in a Teaching Institution , 2007, American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality.

[37]  S. de Lusignan,et al.  Assessing the prevalence, monitoring and management of chronic kidney disease in patients with diabetes compared with those without diabetes in general practice , 2007, Diabetic Medicine.

[38]  C. Simon,et al.  Quality and Outcomes Framework: what have we learnt? , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[39]  S. Dinneen,et al.  Multimorbidity and risk among patients with established cardiovascular disease: a cohort study. , 2008, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[40]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Systematic Review: The Evidence That Publishing Patient Care Performance Data Improves Quality of Care , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[41]  Tom Chan,et al.  The Development of Primary Care Information Technology in the United Kingdom , 2008, The Journal of ambulatory care management.

[42]  Maya K. Rao Chronic Kidney Disease: National Clinical Guideline for Early Identification and Management in Adults in Primary and Secondary Care , 2009 .