Search

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive, debilitating disease associated with significant clinical burden and is estimated to affect 15 million individuals in the US. Although a large number of individuals are diagnosed with COPD, many individuals still remain undiagnosed due to the slow progression of the disorder and lack of recognition of early symptoms. Not only is there under-diagnosis but there is also evidence of sub-optimal evidence-based treatment of those who have COPD. Despite the development of international COPD guidelines, many primary care physicians who care for the majority of patients with COPD are not translating this evidence into effective clinical practice. Method/Design: This paper describes the design and rationale for a randomized, cluster design trial (RCT) aimed at translating the COPD evidence-based guidelines into clinical care in primary care practices. During Phase 1, a needs assessment evaluated barriers and facilitators to implementation of COPD guidelines into clinical practice through focus groups of primary care patients and providers. Using formative evaluation and feedback from focus groups, three tools were developed. These include a computerized patient activation tool (an interactive iPad with wireless data transfer to the spirometer); a web-based COPD guideline tool to be used by primary care providers as a decision support tool; and a COPD patient education toolkit to be used by the practice team. During phase II, an RCT will be performed with one year of intervention within 30 primary care practices. The effectiveness of the materials developed in Phase I are being tested in Phase II regarding physician performance of COPD guideline implementation and the improvement in the clinically relevant outcomes (appropriate diagnosis and management of COPD) compared to usual care. We will also examine the use of a patient activation tool--'MyLungAge'--to prompt patients at risk for or who have COPD to request spirometry confirmation and to request support for smoking cessation if a smoker. Discussion: Using a multi-modal intervention of patient activation and a technology-supported health care provider team, we are testing the effectiveness of this intervention in activating patients and improving physician performance around COPD guideline implementation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01237561 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COPD-6™ is a lung function testing device for a rapid pre-spirometry testing to screen-out at-risk individuals not having COPD and indicating those at risk. The aim of this study was to validate COPD-6™ lung function testing (index test) in general practice in discriminating patients with COPD out of the population at risk - smokers/exsmokers with no previous diagnosis of COPD, using measurements at tertiary care as reference standard. Methods: Consecutive 227 subjects (115 women, 185 smokers/42 ex-smokers, ≥20 pack-years) with no previous diagnosis of COPD, aged 52.5 (SD 6.8) years from 26 general practitioners (GPs) were recruited, lung function tested with COPD-6™, referred to the tertiary institution for repeated COPD-6™ testing followed by spirometry with a bronchodilator (salbutamol), examination, and pulmonologist consultation for the diagnosis and severity of COPD. Results: COPD was diagnosed in 43 subjects (18.9 %), with an AUC of 0.827 (95 % CI 0.769-0.875, P < 0.001) for the diagnosis of COPD when lung function was measured using COPD-6™ in GP’s office with a specificity of 100 % (95 % CI, 97.95–100 %) but a very low sensitivity of 32.56 % (95 % CI, 20.49–47.48 %). Significant agreement for forced expiratory volume in 1 s measured at GP’s office and at lung function lab was found (mean difference 0.01 L, p = 0.667) but not for other measured parameters (p < 0.001 for all). Conclusions: Our study results point out that active case finding in a population at risk for COPD should be instituted (almost 20 % of undiagnosed COPD). Based on our results lung function testing with COPD-6™ can substitute spirometry testing in cases where it is not readily available to the patient/physician taken into account that the traditional FEV1/FEV6 cutoff value of <0.7 is not the only criterion for diagnosis and/or further referral. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous research has shown that in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients, it is important to consider not only physical functioning and complaints but also psychological factors, such as illness perceptions, to explain differences in Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). The objective of this study is to analyse the extent to which the specific dimensions of illness perceptions according to the Common Sense Model (corrected for airflow limitation, dyspnoea and comorbidities) contribute to HRQoL. Method: In a cross-sectional study in primary care, 90 COPD patients completed questionnaires: The Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire, the Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) and the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ). Analyses were performed with multiple linear regression. Results: When corrected for confounders (airflow limitation, dyspnoea and comorbidities), identity (β = .42) and comprehensibility (β = -.16) were associated with HRQoL (CCQ). Identity, comprehensibility and dyspnoea explained 56% of the variation in HRQoL (R² = .56). Consequences (β = -.50) and treatment control (β = .20) were associated with HRQoL (the CRQ's physical domain). They explained 59% of the variation in the CRQ physical (R² = .59) domain. Treatment control (β = .19) and emotional response (β = -.33) were associated with the CRQ emotional domain. Conclusions: Patients who experience fewer symptoms attributed to COPD, who have a better understanding of the disease, who experience less impact of COPD in daily life, who experience better treatment control and who have less of an emotional response have better HRQoL. This study indicates that the HRQoL of COPD patients is associated with illness perceptions as well as with the severity of dyspnoea as experienced by patients. Airflow limitation measures or comorbidities do not add to the explanation of HRQoL. The results of this study provide starting points for the development of interventions focusing on illness perceptions to support COPD patients in their disease management and to improve HRQoL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a gap between prescribed asthma medication and diagnosed asthma in children and adolescents. However, few studies have explored this issue among adults, where asthma medication is also used for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between prescribing of medications indicated for asthma and COPD and the recorded diagnosis for these conditions. Method: In a register-based study, individuals prescribed a medication indicated for asthma and COPD during 2004-2005 (Group A; n = 14 101) and patients with diagnoses of asthma or COPD recorded during 2000-2005 (Group B; n = 12 328) were identified from primary health care centers in Skaraborg, Sweden. From a 5% random sample of the medication users (n = 670), the written medical records were accessed. Primary outcomes: prevalence of medication and diagnoses, reasons for prescription. Secondary outcomes: type and number of prescribed drugs and performance of peak expiratory flow or spirometry. Results: Medications indicated for asthma and COPD was prescribed to 5.6% of the population in primary care (n = 14 101). Among them, an asthma diagnosis was recorded for 5876 individuals (42%), 1116 (8%) were diagnosed with COPD and 545 (4%) had both diagnoses. The remaining 6564 individuals (46%) were lacking a recorded diagnosis. The gap between diagnosis and medication was present in all age-groups. Medication was used as a diagnostic tool among 30% of the undiagnosed patients and prescribed off-label for 54%. Missed recording of ICD-codes for existing asthma or COPD accounted for 16%. Conclusion: There was a large discrepancy between prescribing of medication and the prevalence of diagnosed asthma and COPD. Consequently, the prevalence of prescriptions of medications indicated for asthma and COPD should not be used to estimate the prevalence of these conditions. Medication was used both as a diagnostic tool and in an off-label manner. Therefore, the prescribing of medications for asthma and COPD does not adhere to national clinical guidelines. More efforts should be made to improve the prescribing of medication indicated for asthma and COPD so that they align with current guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People living with chronic disease currently account for the majority of the total healthcare costs. The Central Denmark Region implemented a disease management programme (DMP) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 2008. This presented an opportunity to examine the effect of an evidence-based, planned and proactive implementation of a DMP compared to the usual implementation strategy. Methods: We performed a block- and cluster-randomised controlled trial with two groups and an extra external control group. The primary outcome was patients' assessment of their care after using an active implementation model for a DMP for COPD measured with the Patient-Assessment-of-Chronic-Illness-Care (PACIC) instrument. At baseline, questionnaires were sent to 2,895 patients identified by an algorithm based on health registry data on lung-related contacts to the healthcare system. Patients were asked to confirm or refute their diagnosis of COPD. Of those who responded, 1,445 (72.8%) confirmed their diagnosis. PACIC data were collected at baseline and at a 12-month follow-up for 744 (51.1%) patients. Results: Comparing the three groups after the implementation of the DMP, we found a statistically significantly higher change in the PACIC score in the intervention group than in the control groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the control and the external control groups in any of the dimensions. Conclusions: Reinforcing the role of general practice as coordinator for care-and self-management-support with an active implementation of a DMP for COPD made patients score higher on the PACIC instrument, which indicates a better experience of the received healthcare. Trial registration: NCT01228708. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Continuing medical education (CME) is essential to developing and maintaining high quality primary care. Traditionally, CME is delivered face-to-face, but due to geographical distances, and pressure of work in Bangladesh, general practitioners (GPs) are unable to relocate for several days to attend training. Using chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as an exemplar, we aimed to assess the feasibility of blended learning (combination of face-to-face and online) for GPs, and explore trainees' and trainers' perspectives towards the blended learning approach. Methods: We used a mixed-methods design. We trained 49 GPs in two groups via blended (n = 25) and traditional face-to-face approach (n = 24) and assessed their post-course knowledge and skills. The COPD Physician Practice Assessment Questionnaire (COPD-PPAQ) was administered before and one-month post-course. Verbatim transcriptions of focus group discussions with 18 course attendees and interviews with three course trainers were translated into English and analysed thematically. Results: Forty GPs completed the course (Blended: 19; Traditional: 21). The knowledge and skills post course, and the improvement in self-reported adherence to COPD guidelines was similar in both groups. Most participants preferred blended learning as it was more convenient than taking time out of their busy work life, and for many the online learning optimised the benefits of the subsequent face-to-face sessions. Suggested improvements included online interactivity with tutors, improved user friendliness of the e-learning platform, and timing face-to-face classes over weekends to avoid time-out of practice. Conclusions: Quality improvement requires a multifaceted approach, but adequate knowledge and skills are core components. Blended learning is feasible and, with a few caveats, is an acceptable option to GPs in Bangladesh. This is timely, given that online learning with limited face-to-face contact is likely to become the norm in the on-going COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]