Suchergebnisse

Acknowledgements Support: We acknowledge the data management support of Grampian Data Safe Haven and the associated financial support of NHS Research Scotland, through NHS Grampian investment in the Grampian Data Safe Haven. Dr Sawhney is supported by a Clinical Research Training Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (reference no. 102729/Z/13/Z). We also acknowledge support from The Farr Institute of Health Informatics Research, which is supported by a 10-funder consortium: Arthritis Research UK, the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the National Institute of Health Research, the National Institute for Social Care and Health Research (Welsh Assembly Government), the Chief Scientist Office (Scottish Government Health Directorates), and the Wellcome Trust (Medical Research Council grant no: Scotland MR/K007017/1). The funders of this study had no role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

Acknowledgments We acknowledge the data management support of Grampian Data Safe Haven (DaSH) and the associated financial support of NHS Research Scotland, through NHS Grampian investment in the Grampian DaSH. SS is supported by a Clinical Research Training Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (Ref 102729/Z/13/Z). We also acknowledge the support from The Farr Institute of Health Informatics Research. The Farr Institute is supported by a 10-funder consortium: Arthritis Research UK, the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the National Institute of Health Research, the National Institute for Social Care and Health Research (Welsh Assembly Government), the Chief Scientist Office (Scottish Government Health Directorates), and the Wellcome Trust (MRC Grant Nos: Scotland MR/K007017/1). The funders of this study had no role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the report; or the decision to submit the report for publication. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a significant health problem in Canada. Understanding the capacity of the Canadian health-care system to deliver kidney care is important to provide optimal care. OBJECTIVE: To compare Canada's position in relation to countries of similar economic standing. DESIGN: Cross-sectional electronic survey. SETTING: Member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that participated in the survey. PARTICIPANTS: Nephrologists, other physicians, policymakers, and other professionals with relevant expertise in kidney care. MEASUREMENTS: Not applicable. METHODS: A survey administered by the International Society of Nephrology assessed the global capacity of kidney care delivery. Data from participating OECD countries were analyzed using descriptive statistics to compare Canada's position. RESULTS: Of the participating countries, most funded kidney care services (non-medication) by government (transplantation: 85%, dialysis: 81%, acute kidney injury (AKI): 77%). Most countries covered medication. Canada reported a public funding model for kidney services and a mix of public and private sources for medication. Nephrologists and nephrology trainee densities were lower in Canada compared to the median (15.33 vs. 25.82 and 1.74 vs. 3.94, respectively). CKD was recognized as a health priority in five countries, but not in Canada. Registries for CKD did not exist in most (24/26) countries. Canada followed a national strategy for noncommunicable diseases, but this was not specific to CKD care, dialysis, or transplantation. LIMITATIONS: Risks of recall bias or social desirability bias are present. Differences in a number of factors could influence discrepancies among countries and were not explored. Responses reflected the existence of practices, policies, and strategies, and may not necessarily describe action or impact. Capacity of care is not equal across all regions and provinces within Canada; however, the findings are reported on a national level ...

Substantial heterogeneity in practice patterns around the world has resulted in wide variations in the quality and type of dialysis care delivered. This is particularly so in countries without universal standards of care and governmental (or other organizational) oversight. Most high-income countries have developed such oversight based on documentation of adherence to standardized, evidence-based guidelines. Many low- and lower-middle-income countries have no or only limited organized oversight systems to ensure that care is safe and effective. The implementation and oversight of basic standards of care requires sufficient infrastructure and appropriate workforce and financial resources to support the basic levels of care and safety practices. It is important to understand how these standards then can be reasonably adapted and applied in low- and lower-middle-income countries. Keywords: hemodialysis; minimum safety standards; peritoneal dialysis; quality of care.

The global nephrology community recognises the need for a cohesive plan to address the problem of chronic kidney disease (CKD). In July, 2016, the International Society of Nephrology hosted a CKD summit of more than 85 people with diverse expertise and professional backgrounds from around the globe. The purpose was to identify and prioritise key activities for the next 5-10 years in the domains of clinical care, research, and advocacy and to create an action plan and performance framework based on ten themes: strengthen CKD surveillance; tackle major risk factors for CKD; reduce acute kidney injury-a special risk factor for CKD; enhance understanding of the genetic causes of CKD; establish better diagnostic methods in CKD; improve understanding of the natural course of CKD; assess and implement established treatment options in patients with CKD; improve management of symptoms and complications of CKD; develop novel therapeutic interventions to slow CKD progression and reduce CKD complications; and increase the quantity and quality of clinical trials in CKD. Each group produced a prioritised list of goals, activities, and a set of key deliverable objectives for each of the themes. The intended users of this action plan are clinicians, patients, scientists, industry partners, governments, and advocacy organisations. Implementation of this integrated comprehensive plan will benefit people who are at risk for or affected by CKD worldwide.

An international survey led by the International Society of Nephrology in 2016 assessed the current capacity of kidney care worldwide. To better understand how governance and leadership guide kidney care, items pertinent to government priority, advocacy, and guidelines, among others, were examined. Of the 116 responding countries, 36% (n = 42) reported CKD as a government health care priority, which was associated with having an advocacy group (χ2 = 11.57; P = 0.001). Nearly one-half (42%; 49 of 116) of countries reported an advocacy group for CKD, compared with only 19% (21 of 112) for AKI. Over one-half (59%; 68 of 116) of countries had a noncommunicable disease strategy. Similarly, 44% (48 of 109), 55% (57 of 104), and 47% (47 of 101) of countries had a strategy for nondialysis CKD, chronic dialysis, and kidney transplantation, respectively. Nearly one-half (49%; 57 of 116) reported a strategy for AKI. Most countries (79%; 92 of 116) had access to CKD guidelines and just over one-half (53%; 61 of 116) reported guidelines for AKI. Awareness and adoption of guidelines were low among nonnephrologist physicians. Identified barriers to kidney care were factors related to patients, such as knowledge and attitude (91%; 100 of 110), physicians (84%; 92 of 110), and geography (74%; 81 of 110). Specific to renal replacement therapy, patients and geography were similarly identified as a barrier in 78% (90 of 116) and 71% (82 of 116) of countries, respectively, with the addition of nephrologists (72%; 83 of 116) and the health care system (73%; 85 of 116). These findings inform how kidney care is currently governed globally. Ensuring that guidelines are feasible and distributed appropriately is important to enhancing their adoption, particularly in primary care. Furthermore, increasing advocacy and government priority, especially for AKI, may increase awareness and strategies to better guide kidney care.

An international survey led by the International Society of Nephrology in 2016 assessed the current capacity of kidney care worldwide. To better understand how governance and leadership guide kidney care, items pertinent to government priority, advocacy, and guidelines, among others, were examined. Of the 116 responding countries, 36% (n = 42) reported CKD as a government health care priority, which was associated with having an advocacy group (χ2 = 11.57; P = 0.001). Nearly one-half (42%; 49 of 116) of countries reported an advocacy group for CKD, compared with only 19% (21 of 112) for AKI. Over one-half (59%; 68 of 116) of countries had a noncommunicable disease strategy. Similarly, 44% (48 of 109), 55% (57 of 104), and 47% (47 of 101) of countries had a strategy for nondialysis CKD, chronic dialysis, and kidney transplantation, respectively. Nearly one-half (49%; 57 of 116) reported a strategy for AKI. Most countries (79%; 92 of 116) had access to CKD guidelines and just over one-half (53%; 61 of 116) reported guidelines for AKI. Awareness and adoption of guidelines were low among nonnephrologist physicians. Identified barriers to kidney care were factors related to patients, such as knowledge and attitude (91%; 100 of 110), physicians (84%; 92 of 110), and geography (74%; 81 of 110). Specific to renal replacement therapy, patients and geography were similarly identified as a barrier in 78% (90 of 116) and 71% (82 of 116) of countries, respectively, with the addition of nephrologists (72%; 83 of 116) and the health care system (73%; 85 of 116). These findings inform how kidney care is currently governed globally. Ensuring that guidelines are feasible and distributed appropriately is important to enhancing their adoption, particularly in primary care. Furthermore, increasing advocacy and government priority, especially for AKI, may increase awareness and strategies to better guide kidney care.