RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to develop, implement, and evaluate a clinical decision support (CDS) system for chronic kidney disease (CKD) in a primary care setting, with the goal of improving CKD care in adults. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cluster randomized trial. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: A total of 32 Midwestern primary care clinics were randomly assigned to either receive usual care or CKD-CDS intervention. Between April 2019 and March 2020, we enrolled 6,420 patients aged 18-75 years with laboratory-defined glomerular filtration rate categories of CKD Stage G3 and G4, and 1 or more of 6 CKD care gaps: absence of a CKD diagnosis, suboptimal blood pressure or glycated hemoglobin levels, indication for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker but not prescribed, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent on the active medication list, or indication for a nephrology referral. INTERVENTION: The CKD-CDS provided personalized suggestions for CKD care improvement opportunities directed to both patients and clinicians at primary care encounters. OUTCOMES: We assessed the proportion of patients meeting each of 6 CKD-CDS quality metrics representing care gap resolution after 18 months. RESULTS: The adjusted proportions of patients meeting quality metrics in CKD-CDS versus usual care were as follows: CKD diagnosis documented (26.6% vs 21.8%; risk ratio [RR], 1.17; 95% CI, 0.91-1.51); angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker prescribed (15.9% vs 16.1%; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.76-1.18); blood pressure control (20.4% vs 20.2%; RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84-1.15); glycated hemoglobin level control (21.4% vs 22.1%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80-1.24); nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent not on the active medication list (51.5% vs 50.4%; RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.90-1.17); and referral or visit to a nephrologist (38.7% vs 36.1%; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.79-1.32). LIMITATIONS: We encountered an overall reduction in expected primary care encounters and obstacles to point-of-care CKD-CDS utilization because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The CKD-CDS intervention did not lead to a significant improvement in CKD quality metrics. The challenges to CDS use during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic likely influenced these results. FUNDING: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R18DK118463). TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03890588.
This study aimed to improve the management of chronic kidney disease (CKD) through a clinical decision support (CDS) system. It involved 32 primary care clinics and 6,420 patients with CKD who had 1 or more of 6 CKD care improvement opportunities. The CDS provided personalized suggestions to both patients and clinicians about CKD care opportunities during primary care visits. After 18 months, the study found no significant differences between patients in clinics with CKD-CDS compared with usual care in diagnosing CKD, prescribing recommended medications, controlling blood pressure or glycated hemoglobin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent usage, or nephrology referrals. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic may have influenced results by introducing unforeseen implementation challenges, reduced visits, and less than expected CDS exposure.