Abstract
Objective To determine whether the implementation of electronic alerts for acute kidney injury improves care and outcomes in real-world clinical practice.
Design Population-based, regression discontinuity analysis
Setting Hospital and community-based systems across all 8 health boards in Wales, from 2016 to 2021 following implementation of AKI alerts.
Participants 3.1 million adults aged ≥18 years resident and registered at GP practices in Wales between the years of 2016-2021, following implementation of AKI e-alerts across all 8 Wales health boards.
Exposure Electronic alerts for acute kidney injury provided in either a passive (7 boards) or interruptive (1 board) manner to physicians through laboratory reporting systems.
Main outcome measures Mortality, hospital admission or readmission, severity and recovery of AKI, coding of acute kidney injury, proteinuria and blood pressure measurements.
Results Among 861,494 and 354,505 eligible patient encounters, 5.8% and 2.0% AKI alerts were generated from hospital and community settings, respectively; mean age 64 years, 54% female. In both hospital and community settings, respectively, AKI alerts led to no significant differences in mortality [complier average treatment effect +1.31% (95% CI −3.07, 4.74); +2.07% (95% CI −3.44, 6.65)] or admissions/readmissions [+0.13% (95% CI −3.82, 4.21); +4.07% (95% CI −1.84, 8.27)]. There was a modest increase in hospital coding of AKI with alerts [+5.88% (95% CI 2.22, 7.58)], but no difference in primary care coding of AKI after discharge [+0.72% (95% CI −0.67, 1.30)]. Alerts exerted small increases on subsequent checks for proteinuria and of blood pressure. Findings were consistent for passive and interruptive alerts. There were no meaningful differences by rurality, deprivation, sex, history of surgery, diabetes, or vascular disease.
Conclusions The nationwide implementation of AKI alerts in Wales produced small effects on documentation of AKI and some processes of care but exerted no effects on survival or hospital admissions in acute care or community settings. The consistently poor outcomes, and the deficiencies in documentation and care after AKI highlight the ongoing need for an improved clinical response.
Registration A prespecified analysis protocol is available at Open Science Framework (OSF) repository (https://osf.io/f4wz9/?view_only=d20e49817bc74f1fa66afc7aa8dda0ab)
What is known Previous randomised trials and real-world observational studies of electronic alerts for acute kidney injury (AKI) have produced mixed results. The applicability of previous trials for real-world clinical practice remains uncertain and contested. AKI e-alerts are still widely used.
What we did We applied Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD), a method gaining traction in clinical research. RDD can work like an ideal target trial to enable causal inference in real-world settings. RDD is particularly effective when clinical actions are triggered by a specific measurement threshold. This approach allowed us we to evaluate a nationwide AKI e-alert initiative across Wales.
What we found We found no evidence that AKI e-alerts improved or worsened outcomes across any clinical setting, patient subgroup, or alert delivery method. Nonetheless, the consistently poor outcomes, and the deficiencies in documentation and care after AKI highlight the ongoing need for an improved clinical response.
Competing Interest Statement
Dr Scale is Acute Kidney Injury clinical lead for the Welsh Kidney Network. All the other authors declared no competing interests.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by grants to Pascal Geldsetzer by Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco. The funders had no role in the study design, analysis, interpretation of the data, or decision to submit the article for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee of the independent Information Governance Review Panel (IGRP) at the Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank gave ethical approval for this work (IGRP; application number 1306).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are not publicly available. Data access would require approval by SAIL's Information Governance Review Panel.
