The utility and cost of embedding geriatric expertise in a tertiary referral renal clinic
Clicks: 1
ID: 314242
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #76 of 127 articles by views in clinical kidney journal
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 127 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Introduction To address the changing demographic and increasing frailty and co-morbidity of people referred to renal services, we initiated novel, routine, embedded, consultant-led, focussed geriatric assessment of a selected group of patients in our renal low clearance clinic, seeking effects on treatment decision-making, patient outcomes and undertaking a health economic analysis. Participants and Methods 133 patients fulfilling study-developed referral criteria received focussed geriatric assessment. Short-term results (treatment decisions) of all 133 patients, plus long-term (survival) data for the first 77 patients for whom we have 3 years’ follow up are presented. Health economic analysis compared the cost of employing the geriatrician versus avoiding unnecessary/futile dialysis access (arteriovenous fistula) creation based on historic rates in our own unit. Results Starting in 2018, 77 patients were reviewed before suspension enforced by the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020 and a further 56 since resumption between July 2021 and January 2023 (mean age 78 [range 62–92]; 70% male). Following focussed geriatric assessment, the number of patients undecided about treatment changed from 43 to 3; those choosing dialysis reduced from 80 to 44 and those choosing Conservative Management (CM) increased from 10 to 74. The number of advance care plans made increased from 0 to 77, and recorded resuscitation decisions from 6 to 42. 36 months after focussed geriatric assessment, the survival rate in the group choosing dialysis was 50% and in the CM group was 33%; most deaths were unrelated to renal failure and there was a trend towards clinical frailty scores impacting outcome more than treatment choice. Health economic analysis demonstrated that the costs of providing this review were more than off-set by reductions in unnecessary/futile fistula formation. Conclusions Routine, protocol-supported focussed geriatric assessment in a tertiary referral renal service appears cost-effective and associated with improved dialysis decision-making, advance care-planning, and resuscitation decision-making.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7161839821
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Virginia Aylett, Samuel D. Relton, Zoe Rogers, Dan Howdon, Anna Winterbottom, Andrew Mooney |
| Journal | clinical kidney journal |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/ckj/sfag132
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.