RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Community acquired acute kidney injury (CA-acute kidney injury) is under-recognized in the outpatient setting and is associated with adverse outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed the incidence of CA-acute kidney injury in an academic primary care practice and community health center and assessed recognition/followup as determined by repeat creatinine measurement (loop-closed). We reviewed 93,259 specimens for 36,593 unique patients from 1/1/2018 through 12/31/2021. RESULTS: There were 220 unique patients with CA-acute kidney injury defined as a >75% increase in creatinine from baseline; incidence: 150/100,000 (0.15% per year). 137 patients (62.3%) had repeat serum creatinine performed within 30 days. Chart reviews of the 83 (37.72%) patients with open loops found there was no follow-up creatinine ordered in 69/83 (83.1%) patients. Mean baseline creatinine was higher and eGFR was lower in the loop-closed group (0.92±0.4mg/dl; 84.45±27.49mls/min) versus (0.63±0.34mg/dl; 105.19±26.67mls/min) in the loop-open group (p<.0001). Preexisting chronic kidney disease was more prevalent in loop-closed patients (35/137; 25.6%) compared to those with open-loops (3/83; 3.6%). Patients with baseline chronic kidney disease were more likely to have the loop-closed. Progression to new chronic kidney disease was common among CA-acute kidney injury patients, occurring in 23.94% of loop-open and 17.50% of loop-closed patients. New baseline eGFR was lower in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians frequently overlooked a clinically significant change in eGFR, especially when the baseline creatinine and incident creatinine levels were in the "normal" range.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The 2021 US Cures Act may engage patients to help reduce diagnostic errors/delays. We examined the relationship between patient portal registration with/without note reading and test/referral completion in primary care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with visits from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2021, and order for (1) colonoscopy, (2) dermatology referral for concerning lesions, or (3) cardiac stress test at 2 academic primary care clinics. We examined differences in timely completion ("loop closure") of tests/referrals for (1) patients who used the portal and read ≥1 note (Portal + Notes); (2) those with a portal account but who did not read notes (Portal Account Only); and (3) those who did not register for the portal (No Portal). We estimated the predictive probability of loop closure in each group after adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical factors using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 12 849 tests/referrals, loop closure was more common among Portal+Note-readers compared to their counterparts for all tests/referrals (54.2% No Portal, 57.4% Portal Account Only, 61.6% Portal+Notes, P < .001). In adjusted analysis, compared to the No Portal group, the odds of loop closure were significantly higher for Portal Account Only (OR 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4), and Portal+Notes (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6) groups. Beyond portal registration, note reading was independently associated with loop closure (P = .002). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Compared to no portal registration, the odds of loop closure were 20% higher in tests/referrals for patients with a portal account, and 40% higher in tests/referrals for note readers, after controlling for sociodemographic and clinical factors. However, important safety gaps from unclosed loops remain, requiring additional engagement strategies.