ArticleFamily practice2025
Creatinine clearance, reduced kidney function, and optimizing prescribing safety through practice feedback: a mixed methods study.
Article in Family practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundKidney function declines with age, increasing risk of harm from raised blood levels of many medicines. Prescribing is often inappropriate for older people with reduced creatinine clearance (CrCl).
objectiveTo examine the feasibility and acceptability of providing performance feedback to increase CrCl calculation and coding and reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing.
methodsWe delivered evidence-based feedback on CrCl coding and prescribing for common medicines requiring dose adjustment in renal impairment. This mixed-methods study in seven UK general practices collected data at three time points for evidence-based feedback (October 2021, December 2021, February 2022) and additionally pre-/post-feedback intervention. An institutional ethnography explored responses. We observed and conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care clinicians. We thematically analysed qualitative data, guided by Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory.
resultsMean CrCl coding for ≥75s rose from 46% to 50.4% (difference 4.4%; range -10.5% to 14.7%). The number of patients with CrCl-associated inappropriate prescribing fell. We observed in 6 settings and interviewed 11 clinicians. Feedback engaged practices, was seen as important and allowed flexible action. All feedback cycle components were evident. Participants mentioned difficulties in remembering to consider kidney function, calculating and coding CrCl, recalling relevant medicines, and deciding appropriate dosing. Pharmacy teams were considered important facilitators in the response.
conclusionsFeedback on prescribing in reduced kidney function can encourage improvement but is not sufficient alone. Systematized CrCl calculation and coding may improve patient safety by facilitating decision support for prescribing, review, and audit/research. A rigorous, larger-scale effectiveness evaluation is likely to be feasible and acceptable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.