Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Background Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with increased cardiovascular mortality and morbidity as well as progression to established renal failure. Interventions in primary care, particularly the lowering of blood pressure in individuals with CKD and proteinuria and diabetes, can slow disease progression. This evidence base is codified in national guidance and in a simplified form in pay-forperformance targets. Prior to conducting the QICKD study -a cluster of quality-improvement interventions with reduction of blood pressure as its primary outcome measure -a diagnostic analysis was conducted to assess the relevance of the intended interventions. Aim To understand practitioners' views of CKD and its management. Method Focus groups were held in five locations across England. Experienced facilitators developed a standardised approach and analysed data using the 'framework' approach. Results Practitioners varied in their views of CKD and their embracing of the guidance. Some sought to implement the full guidance, others only the pay-for-performance targets. Nearly all practitioners had reservations as to whether CKD was really a disease; problematised the diagnosis of CKD purely on an estimate of glomerular filtration rate; questioned whether CKD in older people was part of natural ageing; and had experienced difficulty in explaining the condition to patients without frightening them. Most reported both problems and scepticism concerning the blood pressure targets, and acknowledged educational gaps. Conclusion Practitioners have disparate views about CKD. The quality-improvement interventions in the QICKD study will need to incorporate a large element of education. CKD guidelines may have been introduced without sufficient educational support. © British Journal of General Practice.

Original publication

DOI

10.3399/bjgp10X502100

Type

Journal article

Journal

British Journal of General Practice

Publication Date

01/06/2010

Volume

60

Pages

403 - 409