# Evaluation of a Community-Based Chronic Kidney Disease Screening Program at a Senior Living Community in Blacksburg, Virginia

## TL;DR

A free CKD screening at a senior community in Virginia was found to be convenient and effective in raising awareness, though improvements in communication and scheduling are needed.

## Contribution

The study evaluates a community-based CKD screening program and identifies actionable insights for improving future screenings.

## Key findings

- Most participants found the screening convenient and improved their understanding of kidney health.
- Participants expressed strong interest in future screenings and supported expanding the program to other communities.
- Suggestions for improvement included better scheduling, clearer explanations, and follow-up communication.

## Abstract

Introduction: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is often asymptomatic until advanced stages, predominantly affecting adults aged ≥65 years. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) currently states that there is insufficient evidence to perform routine screening for CKD in those who do not display symptoms. Without proper guidelines to routinely perform these tests, free screenings are scarce throughout the United States, but are offered by certain organizations such as the Kidney Disease Screening and Awareness Program (KDSAP). In October 2024, the Virginia Tech Chapter of KDSAP performed a free CKD screening at Warm Hearth Village (WHV) retirement home in Blacksburg, Virginia, an ideal population to catch early progression of this disease. This study aimed to understand if this screening increased awareness, convenience/satisfaction, follow-up adherence, and recommendations for program improvement.

Methods: A cross-sectional, anonymous survey was distributed to 36 residents who participated one year after the screening. The option of an electronic or paper copy of our survey was provided by the WHV staff and collected upon completion. No reminder or follow-up contact regarding surveys was provided.

Results: Eleven out of 36 participants responded to the survey. Results showed that the program was convenient or very convenient (72.8%), the program improved understanding of kidney health (81.8%), explanations varied in clarity (45.5% completely clear, 45.5% somewhat clear, 9% not clear), and the program left participants satisfied or very satisfied (63.6%), with strong interest in future screenings (81.8%). Every responder agreed with expansion to other communities (100%). Suggested areas for improvement include time and availability, wait times, explanation of results, and follow-up communication.

Conclusion: Community-based CKD screenings appear feasible and well-received, but improved scheduling, staffing, education, and explanation of results may enhance program effectiveness.