Quality of spirometry and related diagnosis in primary care with a focus on clinical use.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: van de Hei SJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7229174 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Quality of spirometry and related diagnosis in primary care with a focus on clinical use.
van de Hei S J SJ Flokstra-de Blok B M J BMJ Baretta H J HJ Doornewaard N E NE van der Molen T T Patberg K W KW Ruberg E C M ECM Schermer T R J TRJ Steenbruggen I I van den Berg J W K JWK Kocks J W H JWH
NPJ primary care respiratory medicine 20200515 1
American and European societies' (ATS/ERS) criteria for spirometry are often not met in primary care. Yet, it is unknown if quality is sufficient for daily clinical use. We evaluated quality of spirometry in primary care based on clinical usefulness, meeting ATS/ERS criteria and agreement on diagnosis between general practitioners (GPs) and pulmonologists. GPs included ten consecutive spirometry tests and detailed history questionnaires of patients who underwent spirometry as part of usual care. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Examine the accessibility and use of forced spirometry (FS) in public primary care facilities centers in Catalonia. DESIGN:Cross-sectional study using a survey. PARTICIPANTS:Three hundred sixty-six Primary Care Teams (PCT) in Catalonia. Third quarter of 2010. MEASUREMENTS:Survey with information on spirometers, training, interpretation and quality control, and the priority that the quality of spirometry had for the team. Indicators FS/100 inhabitants/year, FS/month/PCT; FS/month/10,000 inhabitants. MAIN RESULTS:Response rate: 75%. 97.5% of PCT had spirometer and made an average of 2.01 spirometries/100 inhabitants (34.68 spirometry/PCT/month). 83% have trained professionals.>50% centers perform formal training but no information is available on the quality. 70% performed some sort of calibration. Interpretation was made by the family physician in 87.3% of cases. In 68% of cases not performed any quality control of exploration. 2/3 typed data manually into the computerized medical record.>50% recognized a high priority strategies for improving the quality. CONCLUSION:Despite the accessibility of EF efforts should be made to standardize training, increasing the number of scans test and promote systematic quality control.
| S-EPMC6983645 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary health care (PHC) providers are at the front line of asthma management. To evaluate how planned asthma follow-up occurred in PHC and whether lung function tests were used, 203 patients were followed for 12 years as part of a real-life asthma cohort Seinäjoki Adult Asthma Study (SAAS). A total of 152 patients had visits in PHC attending on average to four planned contacts during 12-year follow-up corresponding to one visit every third year. National guideline recommends annual visits. Patients with ≥4 contacts seemed to have more difficult asthma and better adherence to inhaled corticosteroid medication. Lung function tests were performed on average in 87.5% of annual planned follow-up contacts. Spirometry was performed in 70%, 71% and 97% of all contacts depending on whether it was a contact to GP, nurse or both. Overall, the frequency of follow-up contacts was insufficient but PHC adherence to lung function testing was excellent.
| S-EPMC7083866 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multidonor intensive faecal microbiota transplantation for active ulcerative colitis: a randomised placebo-controlled trial
| PRJEB20349 | ENA
Project description:Purpose:Chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidemia are public health concerns. However, little is known about how these affect patient-level health measures. The aim of the study was to examine the impact of a chronic care model (CCM) on the participant's health-related quality of life (QoL). Patients and methods:Participants received either usual care or CCM by a team of health care professionals including pharmacists, nurses, dietitians, and general practitioners. The participants in the intervention group received medication counseling, adherence, and dietary advice from the health care team. The QoL was measured using the EQ-5D (EuroQoL-five dimension, health-related quality of life questionnaire) and comparison was made between usual care and intervention groups at the beginning and end of the study at 6 months. Results:Mean (standard deviation) EQ-5D index scores improved significantly in the intervention group (0.92±0.10 vs 0.95±0.08; P?0.01), but not in the usual care group (0.94±0.09 vs 0.95±0.09; P=0.084). Similarly, more participants in the intervention group reported improvements in their QoL compared with the usual care group, especially in the pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression dimensions. Conclusion:The implementation of the CCM resulted in significant improvement in QoL. An interdisciplinary team CCM approach should be encouraged, to ultimately result in behavior changes and improve the QoL of the patients.
| S-EPMC5741033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceExperts recommend that alcohol use disorders (AUDs) be managed in primary care, but effective approaches are unclear.ObjectiveTo test whether 12 months of alcohol care management, compared with usual care, improved drinking outcomes among patients with or at high risk for AUDs.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted at 3 Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics. Between October 11, 2011, and September 30, 2014, the study enrolled 304 outpatients who reported heavy drinking (≥4 drinks per day for women and ≥5 drinks per day for men).InterventionsNurse care managers offered outreach and engagement, repeated brief counseling using motivational interviewing and shared decision making about treatment options, and nurse practitioner-prescribed AUD medications (if desired), supported by an interdisciplinary team (CHOICE intervention). The comparison was usual primary care.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes, assessed by blinded telephone interviewers at 12 months, were percentage of heavy drinking days in the prior 28 days measured by timeline follow-back interviews and a binary good drinking outcome, defined as abstinence or drinking below recommended limits in the prior 28 days (according to timeline follow-back interviews) and no alcohol-related symptoms in the past 3 months as measured by the Short Inventory of Problems.ResultsOf 304 participants, 275 (90%) were male, 206 (68%) were white, and the mean (SD) age was 51.4 (13.8) years. At baseline, both the CHOICE intervention (n = 150) and usual care (n = 154) groups reported heavy drinking on 61% of days (95% CI, 56%-66%). During the 12-month intervention, 137 of 150 patients in the intervention group (91%) had at least 1 nurse visit, and 77 of 150 (51%) had at least 6 nurse visits. A greater proportion of patients in the intervention group than in the usual care group received alcohol-related care: 42% (95% CI, 35%-49%; 63 of 150 patients) vs 26% (95% CI, 19%-35%; 40 of 154 patients). Alcohol-related care included more AUD medication use: 32% (95% CI, 26%-39%; 48 of 150 patients in the intervention group) vs 8% (95% CI, 5%-13%; 13 of 154 patients in the usual care group). No significant differences in primary outcomes were observed at 12 months between patients in both groups. The percentages of heavy drinking days were 39% (95% CI, 32%-47%) and 35% (95% CI, 28%-42%), and the percentages of patients with a good drinking outcome were 15% (95% CI, 9%-22%; 18 of 124 patients) and 20% (95 % CI, 14%-28%; 27 of 134 patients), in the intervention and usual care groups, respectively (P = .32-.44). Findings at 3 months were similar.Conclusions and relevanceThe CHOICE intervention did not decrease heavy drinking or related problems despite increased engagement in alcohol-related care.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01400581.
| S-EPMC5885256 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe most common route to a diagnosis of cancer is through primary care. Delays in diagnosing cancer occur when an opportunity to make a timely diagnosis is missed and is evidenced by patients visiting the general practitioner (GP) on multiple occasions before referral to a specialist. Tools that minimize prolonged diagnostic intervals and reduce missed opportunities to investigate patients for cancer are therefore a priority.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore the usefulness and feasibility of a novel quality improvement (QI) tool in which algorithms flag abnormal test results that may be indicative of undiagnosed cancer. This study allows for the optimization of the cancer recommendations before testing the efficacy in a randomized controlled trial.MethodsGPs, practice nurses, practice managers, and consumers were recruited to participate in individual interviews or focus groups. Participants were purposively sampled as part of a pilot and feasibility study, in which primary care practices were receiving recommendations relating to the follow-up of abnormal test results for prostate-specific antigen, thrombocytosis, and iron-deficiency anemia. The Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT) was applied to the analysis using a thematic approach.ResultsA total of 17 interviews and 3 focus groups (n=18) were completed. Participant themes were mapped to CP-FIT across the constructs of context, recipient, and feedback variables. The key facilitators to use were alignment with workflow, recognized need, the perceived importance of the clinical topic, and the GPs' perception that the recommendations were within their control. Barriers to use included competing priorities, usability and complexity of the recommendations, and knowledge of the clinical topic. There was consistency between consumer and practitioner perspectives, reporting language concerns associated with the word cancer, the need for more patient-facing resources, and time constraints of the consultation to address patients' worries.ConclusionsThere was a recognized need for the QI tool to support the diagnosis of cancer in primary care, but barriers were identified that hindered the usability and actionability of the recommendations in practice. In response, the tool has been refined and is currently being evaluated as part of a randomized controlled trial. Successful and effective implementation of this QI tool could support the detection of patients at risk of undiagnosed cancer in primary care and assist in preventing unnecessary delays.
| S-EPMC9389376 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Spirometry is recommended for the diagnosis of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in international guidelines and may be useful for distinguishing asthma from COPD. Numerous spirometry interpretation algorithms (SIAs) are described in the literature, but no studies highlight how different SIAs may influence the interpretation of the same spirometric data.We examined how two different SIAs may influence decision making among primary-care physicians.Data for this initiative were gathered from 113 primary-care physicians attending accredited workshops in Canada between 2011 and 2013. Physicians were asked to interpret nine spirograms presented twice in random sequence using two different SIAs and touch pad technology for anonymous data recording.We observed differences in the interpretation of spirograms using two different SIAs. When the pre-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC (forced expiratory volume in one second/forced vital capacity) ratio was >0.70, algorithm 1 led to a 'normal' interpretation (78% of physicians), whereas algorithm 2 prompted a bronchodilator challenge revealing changes in FEV1 that were consistent with asthma, an interpretation selected by 94% of physicians. When the FEV1/FVC ratio was <0.70 after bronchodilator challenge but FEV1 increased >12% and 200 ml, 76% suspected asthma and 10% suspected COPD using algorithm 1, whereas 74% suspected asthma versus COPD using algorithm 2 across five separate cases. The absence of a post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC decision node in algorithm 1 did not permit consideration of possible COPD.This study suggests that differences in SIAs may influence decision making and lead clinicians to interpret the same spirometry data differently.
| S-EPMC4373504 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND: Spirometry is considered relevant for the diagnosis and monitoring of post-TB lung disease. However, spirometry is rarely done in newly diagnosed TB patients.METHODS: Newly diagnosed, microbiologically confirmed TB patients were recruited for the study. Spirometry was performed within 21 days of TB treatment initiation according to American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines. Spirometry analysis was done using Global Lung Initiative equations for standardisation.RESULTS: Of 1,430 eligible study participants, 24.7% (353/1,430) had no spirometry performed mainly due to contraindications and 23.0% (329/1,430) had invalid results; 52.3% (748/1,430) of participants had a valid result, 82.8% (619/748) of whom had abnormal spirometry. Of participants with abnormal spirometry, 70% (436/619) had low forced vital capacity (FVC), 6.1% (38/619) had a low ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) to FVC, and 19.1% (118/619) had low FVC, as well as low FEV1/FVC ratio. Among those with abnormal spirometry, 26.3% (163/619) had severe lung impairment.CONCLUSIONS: In this population, a high proportion of not performed and invalid spirometry assessments was observed; this was addressed by removing tachycardia as a (relative) contraindication from the study guidance and retraining. The high proportion of patients with severe pulmonary impairment at the time of TB diagnosis suggests a huge morbidity burden and calls for further longitudinal studies on the relevance of spirometry in predicting chronic lung impairment after TB.
| S-EPMC10599411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInadequate volume control may be a main contributor to poor survival and high mortality in hemodialysis patients. Bioimpedance measurement has the potential to improve fluid management, but several dialysis centers lack an agreed fluid management policy, and the method has not yet been implemented. Our aim was to identify renal care professionals' perceived barriers and facilitators for use of bioimpedance in clinical practice.MethodsQualitative data were collected through four focus group interviews with 24 renal care professionals: dieticians, nephrologists and nurses, recruited voluntarily from a nation-wide selection of hemodialysis centers, having access to a bioimpedance-device. The participants were connected to each other and a moderator via equipment for telemedicine and the sessions were recorded. The interviews were semi-structured, focusing on the participants' perceptions of use of bioimpedance in clinical practice. Thematic content analysis was performed in consecutive steps, and data were extracted by employing an inductive, interactive, comparative process.ResultsSeveral barriers and facilitators to the use of bioimpedance in clinical practice were identified, and a multilevel approach to examining barriers and incentives for change was found to be applicable to the ideas and categories that arose from the data. The determinants were categorized on five levels, and the different themes of the levels illustrated with quotations from the focus groups participants.ConclusionsDeterminants for use of bioimpedance were identified on five levels: 1) the innovation itself, 2) the individual professional, 3) the patient, 4) the social context and 5) the organizational context. Barriers were identified in the areas of credibility, awareness, knowledge, self-efficacy, care processes, organizational structures and regulations. Facilitators were identified in the areas of the innovation's attractiveness, advantages in practice, and collaboration. Motivation, team processes and organizational capacities appeared as both barriers and facilitators.
| S-EPMC5966881 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To examine how primary care physicians define placebo concepts, use placebos in clinical practice, and view open-label placebos (OLPs). DESIGN:Semi-structured focus groups that were audio-recorded and content-coded. METHODS:Two focus groups with a total of 15 primary care physicians occurred at medical centres in the New England region of the United States. Prior experience using placebo treatments and attitudes towards open-label placebos were explored. Themes were analysed using an inductive data-driven approach. RESULTS:Physicians displayed a nuanced understanding of placebos and placebo effects in clinical contexts which sometimes focused on relational factors. Some respondents reported that they prescribed treatments with no known pharmacological effect for certain conditions and symptoms ('impure placebos') and that such prescriptions were more common for pain disorders, functional disorders, and medically unexplained symptoms. Opinions about OLP were mixed: Some viewed OLPs favourably or considered them 'harmless'; however, others strongly rejected OLPs as disrespectful to patients. Other issues in relation to OLPs included the following: lack of guidelines, legal and reputational concerns, and the notion that such treatments would run counter to customary medical practice. CONCLUSIONS:A number of physicians reported prescribing impure placebos in clinical care. Although some primary care physicians were resistant to the possibility of recommending OLPs, others regarded OLPs more favourably, viewing them as potential treatments, albeit with restricted potential. Statement of contribution What is already known? Many physicians report prescribing drugs for the purposes of eliciting a placebo effect. Initial evidence for the efficacy of open-label placebos is promising. What does this study add? A more nuanced description of the circumstances under which primary care physicians report placebo prescribing. A qualitative account of physician attitudes about using open-label placebos in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC7423714 | biostudies-literature