Search

Formative research studies can inform stated-preference instrument development to quantify the importance of various attributes of healthcare treatments. The objective of this study was to elicit from patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease the prioritization of an established set of patient-informed value elements. Using an iterative mixed-methods study design, we engaged individuals living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Phase 1 value element elicitation and Phase 2 language refinement. Study participants were recruited from March to July 2019. Four guided activities, administered in an online instrument, elicited individual preferences for 40 disease-agnostic value elements that were aligned with treatment, outcomes, or care process. Responses from the guided activities were summarized and then presented to a patient advocate and additional patient participants for further refinement of the value elements and the phrasing. Twenty-three participants, 18 male and five female, mean age of 66 years (standard deviation = 7) were enrolled in Phase 1. Participant responses informed the selection of eight elements as the key candidates for the Phase 2 language refinement: Side Effects, New Therapeutic Option, Available Treatment, Appropriateness of Care, Predictable Healthcare Needs, Physical Activities: Endurance and Symptom Control, and Explanation of Treatment. With feedback from a patient advocate and additional patient participants, elements were refined, rephrased, or modified and this list was narrowed to six value elements (Side Effects, New Therapeutic Option, Willingness to Pay, Physical Activities, Explanation of Treatment, and Access to Care) to serve as attributes in a conceptual framework for a future quantitative stated-preference instrument. This patient-engaged formative work identified patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease key attributes of value-based decision making that underpin benefit-risk trade-offs between physical endurance, treatment side effects, care access, and cost. This study illustrates an iterative process for eliciting and refining a comprehensive list of value elements, resulting in a subgroup of elements important to a specific patient population.

Formative research studies can inform stated-preference instrument development to quantify the importance of various attributes of healthcare treatments. The objective of this study was to elicit from patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease the prioritization of an established set of patient-informed value elements.Using an iterative mixed-methods study design, we engaged individuals living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Phase 1 value element elicitation and Phase 2 language refinement. Study participants were recruited from March to July 2019. Four guided activities, administered in an online instrument, elicited individual preferences for 40 disease-agnostic value elements that were aligned with treatment, outcomes, or care process. Responses from the guided activities were summarized and then presented to a patient advocate and additional patient participants for further refinement of the value elements and the phrasing.Twenty-three participants, 18 male and five female, mean age of 66 years (standard deviation = 7) were enrolled in Phase 1. Participant responses informed the selection of eight elements as the key candidates for the Phase 2 language refinement: Side Effects, New Therapeutic Option, Available Treatment, Appropriateness of Care, Predictable Healthcare Needs, Physical Activities: Endurance and Symptom Control, and Explanation of Treatment. With feedback from a patient advocate and additional patient participants, elements were refined, rephrased, or modified and this list was narrowed to six value elements (Side Effects, New Therapeutic Option, Willingness to Pay, Physical Activities, Explanation of Treatment, and Access to Care) to serve as attributes in a conceptual framework for a future quantitative stated-preference instrument.This patient-engaged formative work identified patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease key attributes of value-based decision making that underpin benefit-risk trade-offs between physical endurance, treatment side effects, care access, and cost. This study illustrates an iterative process for eliciting and refining a comprehensive list of value elements, resulting in a subgroup of elements important to a specific patient population.

Objectives: To investigate telemedicine adoption, emergency department avoidance, and related characteristics of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with and without exacerbations since the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began. Methods: We conducted the second of a series of online surveys via SurveyMonkey.com of people with COPD between May 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020. Frequency, percentage, and Fisher’s exact test (2-sided) were calculated using SPSS version 26. Results: More than half of respondents (157, 64%), indicated that they started using telemedicine in 2020. A total of 47% of respondents reported having had at least 1 exacerbation since January 1, 2020. Respondents who had at least 1 exacerbation in 2020 were more likely to start using telemedicine in 2020 than respondents who did not report any exacerbation in 2020 (75.7% versus 54.3%, p < 0.001). Respondents reporting a 2020 exacerbation indicated having a significantly higher avoidance of emergency health care since the pandemic began (27.8%) as compared to those who did not have an exacerbation in 2020 (10.1%), p < 0.001. Conclusions: In response to social distancing and other COVID-19 precautions, people with COPD are avoiding traditional, in-person health care environments and turning to telemedicine to prevent and manage exacerbations. Further investigation is needed to identify best practices in and barriers to telemedicine in this population.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of hospital readmissions in the United States. The quality of care delivered to patients with COPD is known to be lacking across the care continuum, and may contribute to high rates of readmission. As part of the response to these issues, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid instituted a penalty for 30-day readmissions as part of their Hospital Readmission Reduction Program in October 2014. At the time the penalty was instated, there was little published evidence on effective hospital-based programs to reduce readmissions after acute exacerbations of COPD. Even now, several years later, few published programs exist, and we continue to lack consistent approaches that lead to improved readmission rates. In addition, there was concern that the penalty would widen health disparities. Despite the dearth of published evidence to reduce readmissions beyond available COPD guidelines, many hospitals across the United States began to develop and implement programs, based on little evidence, due to the financial penalty. We, therefore, assembled a diverse group of clinicians, researchers, payers, and program leaders from across the country to present and discuss approaches that had the greatest potential for success. We drew on expertise from ongoing readmission reduction programs, implementation methodologies, and stakeholder perspectives to develop this Workshop Report on current best practices and models for addressing COPD hospital readmissions.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains a leading cause of disability and death in the United States. The "COPD in the United States" project gathered data about the impact of COPD to highlight variability across states and provide a single point of access to data for state decision makers, the public health community and advocates. This report provides a summary of COPD-related morbidity and mortality in the United States and individual states during 2014-2015 (some metrics contain data from other years). Methods: We used data from multiple sources ( the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System [BRFSS], the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Wide-ranging ONline Data for Epidemiologic Research online database, the CDC's chronic disease indicators data, Centers from Medicare and Medicaid Services Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse, Medical Expenditures Panel Survey and the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation Pulmonary Rehabilitation Directory) to estimate 10 national and state-specific COPD metrics (prevalence, hospitalizations and emergency department visits, 30-day hospital readmissions, mortality, vaccinations, smoking prevalence, per capita medical cost, and the number of COPD patients per a pulmonary rehabilitation program) and to calculate average score across the 10 metrics. Additionally, we used BRFSS data to calculate the prevalence of common comorbid diseases among people who also report having a diagnosis of COPD. Results: During 2014-2015, 5.9% of adults (more than 15.9 million) reported having been told by their health care professional that they had COPD. The age-adjusted prevalence ranged from 3.7% for Puerto Rico and Hawaii, to 12% for West Virginia. The average score, 1 being best and 5 being worst, of the overall COPD burden based on the 10 key metrics ranged from 1.5 for Puerto Rico and Utah to 4.6 for West Virginia. Conclusion: The level of COPD morbidity and mortality is severe throughout the United States. There is considerable variability in COPD metrics by state. These differences may be useful in identifying and addressing policy gaps in the public health approach to COPD and in implementing the COPD National Action Plan.

Previous work indicates the potential for community health workers and peer coaches serving as patient navigators to improve processes of care and health outcomes during care transitions, but have not been sufficiently tested to determine if such programs improve measures of patient experience in minority serving institutions. The objectives of the Patient Navigator to Reduce Readmissions (PArTNER) study was to: 1) conduct a pragmatic clinical effectiveness trial comparing a multi-faceted, stakeholder-supported Navigator intervention (in-person CHW visits in the hospital and after hospital discharge, plus telephone-based peer coaching) versus usual care on the experience of hospital-to-home care transitions in patients hospitalized with heart failure, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, myocardial infarction, or sickle cell disease; 2) examine the effectiveness of the Navigator intervention in patient subgroups; and 3) understand the barriers and facilitators of successfully implementing the Navigator intervention across patient populations. The co-primary outcomes are the 30-day changes in: 1) Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) emotional distress-anxiety, and 2) PROMIS informational support. Secondary outcomes at 30 and 60 days include other PROMIS health measures and hospital readmissions. Innovative features of the PArTNER study include early and continuous engagement of patients, their caregivers, clinicians, health system administrators, and other stakeholders to inform the design and implementation of the Navigator intervention. In this report, we describe the design of the PArTNER study. Keywords: Pragmatic clinical trial, Hospital-to-home transition, Hospital readmissions, Community health worker, Peer coaching

More than 1.5 million adults in the United States use supplemental oxygen for a variety of respiratory disorders to improve their quality of life and prolong survival. This document describes recommendations from a multidisciplinary workshop convened at the ATS International Conference in 2017 with the goal of optimizing home oxygen therapy for adults. Ideal supplemental oxygen therapy is patient-specific, provided by a qualified clinician, includes an individualized prescription and therapeutic education program, and offers oxygen systems that are safe, promote mobility, and treat hypoxemia. Recently, patients and clinicians report a growing number of problems with home oxygen in the United States. Oxygen users experience significant functional, mechanical, and financial problems and a lack of education related to their oxygen equipment-problems that impact their quality of life. Health care providers report a lack of readily accessible resources needed to prescribe oxygen systems correctly and efficiently. Patients with certain lung diseases are affected more than others because of physically unmanageable or inadequate portable systems. Analysis is needed to quantify the unintended impact that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Competitive Bidding Program has had on patients receiving supplemental oxygen from durable medical equipment providers. Studies using effectiveness and implementation research designs are needed to develop and evaluate new models for patient education, identify effective ways for stakeholders to interface, determine the economic benefit of having respiratory therapists perform in-home education and follow-up testing, and collaborate with technology companies to improve portable oxygen devices. Generation of additional evidence of the benefit of supplemental oxygen across the spectrum of advanced lung diseases and the development of clinical practice guidelines should both be prioritized.

Patients are increasingly viewed as key stakeholders who can contribute in meaningful ways to clinical research and are emphasized in research funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). We are not aware of other peer-reviewed publications that report methods and outcomes of patient engagement to refine study design for a PCORI-sponsored clinical effectiveness trial. The aim of this report was to describe the process and outcomes of involving patients in the design of a clinical trial to promote adherence to supplemental oxygen therapy among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In-person focus groups and individual discussions via telephone and email were used to elicit feedback to refine the intervention and clarify outcomes of highest importance to patients. A total of 25 patients and five caregivers provided feedback. Their feedback has informed decisions regarding the length of intervention sessions (20 min and in some cases longer was acceptable), the importance of including caregivers, and discussion topics (e.g., social discomfort about using oxygen in public, identifying personally relevant reasons to use oxygen, pulmonary rehabilitation). Multiple outcomes were rated as highly important to patients (physical function, fatigue, sleep, anxiety, depression, and ability to participate in social roles and activities), and the outcome that was ranked as most important varied by individual. Therefore, multiple patient-reported outcomes will be used as endpoints for the clinical trial. Patient involvement led to refinements of the intervention and clinical trial endpoints to better address the expressed needs and concerns of patients and caregivers.

Background: Treatment of an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) with systemic steroids reduces treatment failure, shortens hospital length of stay, improves lung function, and reduces dyspnea. However, it can also cause hyperglycemia, delirium, fluid retention, and other side effects. The balance of these desirable and undesirable effects probably varies according to the steroid dose. Methods: We asked the question, "Should patients having an AECOPD receive low-dose or high-dose systemic steroids?" We searched Medline and the Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) using a sensitive search strategy built around the medical subject heading, "COPD," and variations of the keywords exacerbation, steroids, and randomized trials. Our search yielded 1702 articles in Medline and 885 articles in CENTRAL; we reviewed the full text of 35 articles and selected 11 studies that met the following conditions: randomized trial, enrolled patients having an AECOPD, compared one systemic steroid regimen to another, measured clinical outcomes, and was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Results: None of the selected trials directly compared the effects of different systemic steroid doses on clinical outcomes in patients with AECOPD. Four trials compared durations of steroid treatment, 3 trials compared types of steroids, 1 trial compared routes of steroid delivery, and 3 trials compared multiple variables. Conclusion: There is a paucity of data to support the selection of a systemic steroid dose in patients having an AECOPD. Randomized trials that measure patient-centered outcomes and compare doses of systemic steroids in patients having an AECOPD are needed.

About 1 in 5 patients hospitalized for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States are readmitted within 30 days. The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has recently expanded its Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program to financially penalize hospitals with higher than expected all-cause 30-day readmission rates following a hospitalization for COPD exacerbation. In October 2013, the COPD Foundation convened a multi-stakeholder National COPD Readmissions Summit to summarize our understanding of how to reduce hospital readmissions in patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbations. Over 225 individuals participated in the Summit, including patients, clinicians, health service researchers, policy makers and representatives of academic health care centers, industry, and payers. Summit participants recommend that programs to reduce hospital readmissions: 1) Include specific recommendations about how to promote COPD self-management skills training for patients and their caregivers; 2) Adequately address co-existing disorders common to COPD in care plans during and after hospitalizations; 3) Include an evaluation of adverse events when implementing strategies to reduce hospital readmissions; and 4) Develop a strategy (e.g., a learning collaboratory) to connect groups who are engaged in developing, testing, and implementing programs to reduce hospital readmissions for COPD and other conditions.

Summary The burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the USA continues to grow. Although progress has been made in the the development of diagnostics, therapeutics, and care guidelines, whether patients' quality of life is improved will ultimately depend on the actual implementation of care and an individual patient's access to that care. In this Commission, we summarise expert opinion from key stakeholders—patients, caregivers, and medical professionals, as well as representatives from health systems, insurance companies, and industry—to understand barriers to care delivery and propose potential solutions. Health care in the USA is delivered through a patchwork of provider networks, with a wide variation in access to care depending on a patient's insurance, geographical location, and socioeconomic status. Furthermore, Medicare's complicated coverage and reimbursement structure pose unique challenges for patients with chronic respiratory disease who might need access to several types of services. Throughout this Commission, recurring themes include poor guideline implementation among health-care providers and poor patient access to key treatments such as affordable maintenance drugs and pulmonary rehabilitation. Although much attention has recently been focused on the reduction of hospital readmissions for COPD exacerbations, health systems in the USA struggle to meet these goals, and methods to reduce readmissions have not been proven. There are no easy solutions, but engaging patients and innovative thinkers in the development of solutions is crucial. Financial incentives might be important in raising engagement of providers and health systems. Lowering co-pays for maintenance drugs could result in improved adherence and, ultimately, decreased overall health-care spending. Given the substantial geographical diversity, health systems will need to find their own solutions to improve care coordination and integration, until better data for interventions that are universally effective become available.

Approximately 20% of patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbations in the United States will be readmitted within 30 days. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has recently proposed to revise the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program to financially penalize hospitals with high all-cause 30-day rehospitalization rates after a hospitalization for COPD exacerbation on or after October 1, 2014.To report the results of a systematic review of randomized clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce the rehospitalizations after COPD exacerbations.Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published between January 1966 and June 2013. Titles, abstracts, and, subsequently, full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Each study was appraised using predefined criteria.Among 913 titles and abstracts screened, 5 studies (1,393 participants) met eligibility criteria. All studies had a primary outcome of rehospitalization at 6 or 12 months. No study examined 30-day rehospitalization as the primary outcome. Each study tested a different set of interventions. Two studies (one conducted in Canada and one conducted in Spain and Belgium) showed a decrease in all-cause rehospitalization over 12 months in the intervention group versus comparator group (mean number of hospitalizations per patient, 1.0 vs. 1.8; P = 0.01; percent hospitalized, 45 vs. 67%; P = 0.028; respectively). The only study conducted in the United States found a greater than twofold higher risk of mortality in the intervention group (17 vs. 7%, P = 0.003) but no significant difference in rehospitalizations. It was unclear which set of interventions was effective or harmful.The evidence base is inadequate to recommend specific interventions to reduce rehospitalizations in this population and does not justify penalizing hospitals for high 30-day rehospitalization rates after COPD exacerbations.