Metabolic evaluation guidelines in patients with nephrolithiasis: Are they being followed? Results of a national, multi-institutional, quality-assessment study
Introduction: The significant cost burden of kidney stones underscores the importance of best clinical practice in kidney stone management. We evaluated adherence to kidney stone metabolic evaluation guidelines in a Canadian population and the interest of patients with regard to prevention.
Methods: A questionnaire based on Canadian Urological Association (CUA) best practice guidelines was designed. Patients presenting for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy treatment (ESWL) were administered this questionnaire to evaluate risk factors of stone disease and assess the use of metabolic evaluations. Patients were asked if they received explanations about their results and if they were interested in kidney stone prevention.
Results: We identified 530 patients at five academic institutions; 79.4% had at least one indication to receive a metabolic evaluation (high-risk stone formers), which increased to 96.6% if first-time stone formers whom reported an interest in metabolic evaluation were included. However, only 41.1 % of these patients had a metabolic evaluation. Endourologists ordered metabolic evaluation more often than other referring urologists (63.6% vs. 36.5%; p<0.001). Furthermore, urologists ordered metabolic evaluations more often than other prescribing physicians (68.9% vs. 31.1%; p<0.001). Sixtytwo percent of patients received explanations about their metabolic evaluation results and 77.5% understood them. Regarding prevention, 84.1% and 83.8% were interested in more explanations and in following a diet or taking a medication, respectively.
Conclusions: Adherence to CUA metabolic evaluation guidelines is suboptimal and could be improved by urologists referring patients for ESWL. Communication between physician and patient may not be adequate. The majority of stone formers are interested in kidney stone prevention.
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.