Silver, Samuel A.

Scientific evidence regarding AKI and acute kidney care has advanced in recent years. However, a knowledge gap remains on the implementation of these evidence-based practices (EBPs) into clinical care. Implementation science (IS) is focused on ensuring that this knowledge is translated in an effective, efficient and sustainable fashion. Objectives: 1) Define the current status of IS; 2) Define a roadmap for accelerating IS with a focus on patient/care partner advocacy, digital tool application, social determinants of health, and resource-limited settings; and 3) Develop a robust and broad research agenda incorporating IS methodology into the programs. Evidence Review: ADQI XXXV was conducted through a modified Delphi process with virtual meetings preceding an in-person meeting. Five workgroups were determined a priori to focus on 1) IS definitions and methods applicable to AKI and acute kidney care; 2) IS literature in AKI and acute kidney care; 3) Innovations in IS to accelerate the adoption, adherence to, and sustainment of EBPs in AKI and acute kidney care; 4) IS methods in resource-limited settings; and 5) Recommendations to identify and evaluate EBPs that are ready for implementation or de-implementation. Prior to the in-person meeting, each workgroup met virtually to review the literature and develop framework questions to address their objectives. During the two-day in person meeting, through iterative discussions, questions and supporting statements were finalized. These questions and statements were agreed upon through voting to achieve consensus, defined as agreement of ≥80%. Conclusions and Relevance: We report a structured multidisciplinary consensus for defining the role of IS in AKI and acute kidney care. Future programs should address these consensus questions and apply these statements along with IS methodology in the translation of science into clinical practice and the implementation/de-implementation of EBPs in clinical care.

Objective: The objective was to explore and describe the role of pharmacists in providing postdischarge care to patients with kidney disease. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (Ebscohost), Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus were searched on January 30, 2023. Publication date limits were not included. Search terms were identified based on 3 concepts: kidney disease, pharmacy services, and patient discharge. Experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, and qualitative studies, or study protocols, describing the pharmacist’s role in providing postdischarge care for patients with kidney disease, excluding kidney transplant recipients, were eligible. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Six unique interventions were described in 10 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Data Synthesis: Four interventions targeted patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) during hospitalization and 2 evaluated patients with pre-existing chronic kidney disease. Pharmacists were a multidisciplinary care team (MDCT) member in 5 interventions and were the sole provider in 1. Roles commonly identified include medication review, medication reconciliation, medication action plan formation, kidney function assessment, drug dose adjustments, and disease education. Some studies showed improvements in diagnostic coding, laboratory monitoring, medication therapy problem (MTP) resolution, and patient education; prevention of hospital readmission was inconsistent. Limitations include lack of standardized reporting of kidney disease, transitions of care processes, and differences in outcomes evaluated. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review identifies potential roles of a pharmacist as part of a postdischarge MDCT for patients with varying degrees of kidney disease. Conclusions: The pharmacist’s role in providing postdischarge care to patients with kidney disease is inconsistent. Multidisciplinary care teams including a pharmacist provided consistent identification and resolution of MTPs, improved patient education, and increased self-awareness of diagnosis.

Background Up to one third of survivors of AKI that required dialysis (AKI-D) during hospitalization remain dialysis dependent at hospital discharge. Of these, 20%–60%, depending on the clinical setting, eventually recover enough kidney function to stop dialysis, and the remainder progress to ESKD. Methods To describe the challenges facing those still receiving dialysis on discharge, the AKINow Committee conducted a group discussion comprising 59 participants, including physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, pharmacists, and patients. The discussion was framed by a patient who described gaps in care delivery at different transition points and miscommunication between care team members and the patient. Results Group discussions collected patient perspectives of ( 1 ) being often scared and uncertain about what is happening to and around them and ( 2 ) the importance of effective and timely communication, a comfortable physical setting, and attentive and caring health care providers for a quality health care experience. Provider perspectives included ( 1 ) the recognition of the lack of evidence-based practices and quality indicators, the significant variability in current care models, and the uncertain reimbursement incentives focused on kidney recovery and ( 2 ) the urgency to address communication barriers among hospital providers and outpatient facilities. Conclusions The workgroup identified key areas for future research and policy change to ( 1 ) improve communication among hospital providers, dialysis units, and patients/care partners; ( 2 ) develop tools for risk classification, subphenotyping, and augmented clinical decision support; ( 3 ) improve education to providers, staff, and patients/care partners; ( 4 ) identify best practices to improve relevant outcomes; ( 5 ) validate quality indicators; and ( 6 ) assess the effect of social determinants of health on outcomes. We urge all stakeholders involved in the process of AKI-D care to align goals and work together to fill knowledge gaps and optimize the care to this highly vulnerable patient population.

Key Points AKI survivors experience gaps in care that contribute to worse outcomes, experience, and cost. Challenges to optimal care include issues with information transfer, education, collaborative care, and use of digital health tools. Research is needed to study these challenges and inform optimal use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions to promote recovery AKI affects one in five hospitalized patients and is associated with poor short-term and long-term clinical and patient-centered outcomes. Among those who survive to discharge, significant gaps in documentation, education, communication, and follow-up have been observed. The American Society of Nephrology established the AKINow taskforce to address these gaps and improve AKI care. The AKINow Recovery workgroup convened two focus groups, one each focused on dialysis-independent and dialysis-requiring AKI, to summarize the key considerations, challenges, and opportunities in the care of AKI survivors. This article highlights the discussion surrounding care of AKI survivors discharged without the need for dialysis. On May 3, 2022, 48 patients and multidisciplinary clinicians from diverse settings were gathered virtually. The agenda included a patient testimonial, plenary sessions, facilitated small group discussions, and debriefing. Core challenges and opportunities for AKI care identified were in the domains of transitions of care, education, collaborative care delivery, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, and digital health applications. Integrated multispecialty care delivery was identified as one of the greatest challenges to AKI survivor care. Adequate templates for communication and documentation; education of patients, care partners, and clinicians about AKI; and a well-coordinated multidisciplinary posthospital follow-up plan form the basis for a successful care transition at hospital discharge. The AKINow Recovery workgroup concluded that advancements in evidence-based, patient-centered care of AKI survivors are needed to improve health outcomes, care quality, and patient and provider experience. Tools are being developed by the AKINow Recovery workgroup for use at the hospital discharge to facilitate care continuity.

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) increases the risk of hospital readmission, chronic kidney disease, and death. Therefore, effective communication in discharge summaries is essential for safe transitions of care. Objective: The objectives of this study were to determine the quality of discharge summaries in AKI survivors and identify predictors of higher quality discharge summaries. Design: Retrospective chart review. Setting: Tertiary care academic center in Ontario, Canada. Patients: We examined the discharge summary quality of 300 randomly selected adult patients who survived a hospitalization with AKI at our tertiary care hospital, stratified by AKI severity. We included 150 patients each from 2015 to 2016 and 2018 to 2019, before and after introduction of a post-AKI clinic in 2017. Measurements: We reviewed charts for 9 elements of AKI care to create a composite score summarizing discharge summary quality. Methods: We used multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors of discharge summary quality. Results: The median discharge summary composite score was 4/9 (interquartile range, 2-6). The least frequently mentioned elements were baseline creatinine (n = 55, 18%), AKI-specific follow-up labs (n = 66, 22%), and medication recommendations (n = 80, 27%). The odds of having a higher quality discharge summary (composite score ≥4/9) was greater for every increase in baseline creatinine of 25 μmol/L (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03, 1.56), intrarenal etiology (aOR: 2.32; 95% CI: 1.26, 4.27), and increased AKI severity (stage 2 aOR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.35, 4.91 and stage 3 aOR: 3.36; 95% CI: 1.56, 7.22). There was no association between discharge summary quality and the years before and after introduction of a post-AKI clinic (aOR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.46, 1.29). Limitations: The single-center study design limits generalizability. Conclusions: Most discharge summaries are missing key AKI elements, even in patients with severe AKI. These gaps suggest several opportunities exist to improve discharge summary communication following AKI.

AKI is a global concern with a high incidence among patients across acute care settings. AKI is associated with significant clinical consequences and increased health care costs. Preventive measures, as well as rapid identification of AKI, have been shown to improve outcomes in small studies. Providing high-quality care for patients with AKI or those at risk of AKI occurs across a continuum that starts at the community level and continues in the emergency department, hospital setting, and after discharge from inpatient care. Improving the quality of care provided to these patients, plausibly mitigating the cost of care and improving short- and long-term outcomes, are goals that have not been universally achieved. Therefore, understanding how the management of AKI may be amenable to quality improvement programs is needed. Recognizing this gap in knowledge, the 22nd Acute Disease Quality Initiative meeting was convened to discuss the evidence, provide recommendations, and highlight future directions for AKI-related quality measures and care processes. Using a modified Delphi process, an international group of experts including physicians, a nurse practitioner, and pharmacists provided a framework for current and future quality improvement projects in the area of AKI. Where possible, best practices in the prevention, identification, and care of the patient with AKI were identified and highlighted. This article provides a summary of the key messages and recommendations of the group, with an aim to equip and encourage health care providers to establish quality care delivery for patients with AKI and to measure key quality indicators.