ArticleInternal medicine journal2025
Lessons from implementation of a nephrology key performance indicator programme.
Article in Internal medicine journal, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe review the impact of a nephrology key performance indicator (KPI) program implemented over a ten-year period in Victoria, Australia. The program enabled transparent comparison of performance across nephrology units, however improvement against performance targets was not consistent and better understanding of KPIs is required to promote quality improvement.
aimWe aimed to review the impact of the Victorian nephrology KPI programme over a 10-year period.
methodsThe KPI programme involved six KPIs related to the continuum of care for kidney replacement therapy: pre-dialysis education, vascular access at first haemodialysis, home dialysis rates, peritonitis rates, pre-emptive kidney transplantation and rates of transplantation/waitlisting. Data were collected monthly from the 10 Victorian nephrology services using a purpose-designed website portal. Results were analysed and reported every 3 months. We present a summary of each KPI and discuss changes over the 10-year period.
resultsKPI data demonstrated significant differences in performance across KPIs after implementation, particularly in rates of home dialysis and transplant waitlisting. Changes within units were sometimes significant, but across Victoria, performance was relatively static. Over 10 years, there was a lack of significant improvement in clinical performance in several indicators and multiple changes to KPI targets were made.
conclusionThe KPI programme enabled comparison of performance across nephrology units, but improvement in performance targets was not consistent over the 10-year period and the programme served as a means for benchmarking perhaps, rather than a quality improvement tool. Better understanding of each KPI and resources available for quality improvement is crucial for the success of a KPI programme.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.