BackgroundAcute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with poor health outcomes, including increased mortality and rehospitalisation. National policy and patient safety drivers have targeted AKI as an example to ensure safer transitions of care.AimTo establish guidance to promote high-quality transitions of care for adults following episodes of illness complicated by AKI.Design & settingAn appropriateness ratings evaluation was undertaken using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM). The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) AKI working group developed a range of clinical scenarios to help identify the necessary steps to be taken following discharge of a patient from secondary care into primary care in the UK.MethodA 10-person expert panel was convened to rate 819 clinical scenarios, testing the most appropriate time and action following hospital discharge. Specifically, the scenarios focused on determining the appropriateness and urgency for planning: an initial medication review; monitoring of kidney function; and assessment for albuminuria.ResultsTaking no action (that is, no medication review; no kidney monitoring; or no albuminuria testing) was rated inappropriate in all cases. In most scenarios, there was consensus that both the initial medication review and kidney function monitoring should take place within 1–2 weeks or 1 month, depending on clinical context. However, patients with heart failure and poor kidney recovery were rated to require expedited review. There was consensus that assessment for albuminuria should take place at 3 months after discharge following AKI.ConclusionSystems to support tailored and timely post-AKI discharge care are required, especially in high-risk populations, such as people with heart failure.

We present a 42-year-old woman with pre-existing autoimmune polyendocrinopathy syndrome (APS) Type 2 and chronic kidney disease due to Type 1 diabetic nephropathy, who developed a rapid deterioration in renal function due to perinuclear anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (pANCA)-associated vasculitis. Although possibly a chance occurrence, ANCA have been detected more frequently in patients with a history of certain autoimmune diseases. Such an association may simply reflect an underlying tendency to immune system dysfunction in these patients and the finding of positive ANCA serology does not reliably herald the development of ANCA-associated vasculitis. However, our case illustrates that positive ANCA serology in such circumstances is not always a benign phenomenon and should still be interpreted within the clinical context. Moreover, clinicians managing patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease should maintain a low threshold for appropriate assessment should such patients develop evidence suggestive of vasculitis.

No abstract

No abstract