Dataset Information

Use of National Asthma Guidelines by Allergists and Pulmonologists: A National Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Little is known about specialist-specific variations in guideline agreement and adoption.

Objective

To assess similarities and differences between allergists and pulmonologists in adherence to cornerstone components of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program's Third Expert Panel Report.

Methods

Self-reported guideline agreement, self-efficacy, and adherence were assessed in allergists (n = 134) and pulmonologists (n = 99) in the 2012 National Asthma Survey of Physicians. Multivariate models were used to assess if physician and practice characteristics explained bivariate associations between specialty and "almost always" adhering to recommendations (ie, ≥75% of the time).

Results

Allergists and pulmonologists reported high guideline self-efficacy and moderate guideline agreement. Both groups "almost always" assessed asthma control (66.2%, standard error [SE] 4.3), assessed school/work asthma triggers (71.3%, SE, 3.9), and endorsed inhaled corticosteroids use (95.5%, SE 2.0). Repeated assessment of the inhaler technique, use of asthma action/treatment plans, and spirometry were lower (39.7%, SE 4.0; 30.6%, SE 3.6; 44.7%, SE 4.1, respectively). Compared with pulmonologists, more allergists almost always performed spirometry (56.6% vs 38.6%, P = .06), asked about nighttime awakening (91.9% vs 76.5%, P = .03) and emergency department visits (92.2% vs 76.5%, P = .03), assessed home triggers (70.5% vs 52.6%, P = .06), and performed allergy testing (61.8% vs 21.3%, P < .001). In multivariate analyses, practice-specific characteristics explained differences except for allergy testing.

Conclusions

Overall, allergists and pulmonologists adhere to the asthma guidelines with notable exceptions, including asthma action plan use and inhaler technique assessment. Recommendations with low implementation offer opportunities for further exploration and could serve as targets for increasing guideline uptake.

SUBMITTER: Cloutier MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7554121 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:In April 2017 the Mexican Asthma Guidelines (GUIMA) were published. Before the launch, physicians' knowledge was explored related to key issues of the guideline. Methods:A SurveyMonkey® survey was sent out to board-certified physicians of 5 medical specialties treating asthma. Replies were analyzed per specialty against the GUIMA evidence-based recommendations. We present the treatment part here. Results:A total of 364 allergists (ALLERG), 161 pulmonologists (PULM), 34 ENTs, 239 pediatricians (PED) and 62 general practitioners (GPs) replied to the survey and 247-83-14-135-37 respectively finished it. Spirometry is not routinely indicated when asthma is very probable by ALLERG 54%, PULM 47%, ENT 39%, PED 65%, GP 64%. A fictitious case proposed to the physicians with intermittent asthma was erroneously treated with ICS by ALLERG 9%, PULM 11%, ENT 28%, PED 10%, GP 11%. The mild persistent case received mistakenly ICS-LABA by ALLERG 25%, PULM 26%, ENT 33%, PED 27%, GP 23%. The first-line option for moderate persistent asthma was ICS(median dose) instead of ICS(low)+LABA for ALLERG 29%, PULM 25%, ENT 17%, PED 27%, GP 23% and in severe asthma maintenance treatment PULM20%, ALLERG-ENT-PED-GP 22-34% failed to indicate LABA. Concerning the guidelines' recommendation to use one inhaler for maintenance & rescue in moderate-to-severe asthma, PULM45%, ALLERG-ENT-PED-GP 56-80% (p < 0.00001), erroneously indicated ICS-salmeterol could be used, instead of ICS-formoterol. Oral ?2 or theophylline are no longer recommended, but PULM 37% and ALLERG-ENT-PED-GP 42-62% (p < 0.01) still indicate their use. In severe asthma 61-73% of physicians consider adding LTRA to the treatment; only PULM38%, OTHERS12-25% consider adding tiotropium (p < 0.001) and 3-17% consider adding omalizumab, both guideline recommended add-ons. As for asthma in pregnancy, most surveyed are not aware budesonide is the 1st line option ICS. Finally, 81-97% of the group-members recognized allergen immunotherapy, as a viable add-on, in line with GINA/GEMA/GUIMA recommendations. Conclusions:An online survey could detect knowledge-gaps related to asthma treatment. Interestingly, surveyed physicians tended to over-treat the milder asthma cases, thus clearly leaving room for cost-savings. Caution should be taken in the promotion of the SMART (single-maintenance-and-reliever-treatment) approach, which can only be done with ICS-formoterol. Many physicians opt for other combinations not apt for this approach. Among all surveyed specialties there is ample room for improvement in mild and severe asthma management.

Project description:Background and objectives: Although primary care clinicians provide >60% of U.S. asthma care, no nationally representative study has examined variation in adherence among primary care groups to four cornerstone domains of the Expert Panel Report-3 asthma guidelines: assessment/monitoring, patient education, environmental assessment, and medications. We used the 2012 National Asthma Survey of Physicians: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to compare adherence by family/general medicine practitioners (FM/GM), internists, pediatricians and Community Health Center mid-level clinicians (CHC). Methods: Adherence was self-reported (n?=?1355 clinicians). Adjusted odds of almost always adhering to each recommendation (?75% of the time) were estimated controlling for clinician/practice characteristics, and agreement and self-efficacy with guideline recommendations. Results: A higher percentage of pediatricians adhered to most assessment/monitoring recommendations compared to FM/GM and other groups (e.g. 71.6% [SE 4.0] almost always assessed daytime symptoms versus 50.6% [SE 5.1]-51.1% [SE 5.8], t-test p?<?0.05) but low percentages from all groups almost always performed spirometry (6.8% [SE 2.0]-16.8% [SE 4.7]). Pediatricians were more likely to provide asthma action/treatment plans than FM/GM and internists. Internists were more likely to assess school/work triggers than pediatricians and CHC (environmental assessment). All groups prescribed inhaled corticosteroids for daily control (84.0% [SE 3.7]-90.7% [SE 2.5]) (medications). In adjusted analyses, pediatric specialty, high self-efficacy and frequent specialist referral were associated with high adherence. Conclusions: Pediatricians were more likely to report high adherence than other clinicians. Self- efficacy and frequent referral were also associated with adherence. Adherence was higher for history-taking recommendations and lower for recommendations involving patient education, equipment and expertise.

Project description:AimsBiologics have been proven efficacious for patients with severe asthma (SA). It is essential to diagnose such individuals correctly. This study was designed to survey pulmonologists to identify barriers to early diagnosis and subsequent appropriate use of biologics for SA in Croatia.MethodsA pulmonologist group with expertise in SA developed the initial list of questions, with the final questionnaire created according to a 2-round Delphi method. The resulting survey consisted of 23 items consequently divided into 4 domains: 1) Pulmonologists' demographics and professional experiences; 2) Concerns about asthma management; 3) Attitudes toward SA diagnosis; and 4) Beliefs and attitudes regarding the use of biologics in managing SA. The given answers represented the respondents' estimates.ResultsEighty-four surveys were analyzed, with pulmonologists observing that general practitioners often inaccurately diagnose asthma and treat acute exacerbations. Although specialist centers are capably and correctly equipped, the time to diagnose patients with SA is approximately 3.5 months, with initial use of biologics delayed an additional 2 months. The primary indications for prescribing biologics are conventional therapy with oral glucocorticoids (91.7%) and frequent acute exacerbations (82.1%). In addition to improper diagnosis (64.3%), many patients with SA do not receive the indicated biologics owing to strict administrative directives for reimbursement (70.2%) or limited hospital resources (57.1%).LimitationsThe limitations of this survey include the subjective nature of the collected data, the relatively small sample size, and the lack of the biologic efficacy evaluation.ConclusionsCroatian pulmonologists observed that a significant number of patients with SA who are eligible for biologics are not prescribed them, largely because of an inaccurate and/or delayed diagnosis, a delayed referral to a specialist center, highly restrictive criteria for reimbursement, and/or institutional budgetary limitations.

Project description:The Danish antibiotic use guidelines for companion animal practice were published by the Danish Veterinary Association in 2012. Since then, national surveillance data indicate a 10% reduction in the total use of antibiotics for companion animals, particularly a marked reduction in the use of third generation cephalosporins. The aim of the study was to assess if and how the guidelines have impacted diagnostic and antibiotic prescription habits of the users, and to identify user perceived barriers to implementation.An online questionnaire was sent to all 882 members of the Danish Small Animal Veterinary Association in October 2015. The survey was completed by 151 veterinarians. Respondents most frequently consulted the recommendations on skin and urinary tract infections (UTI), and users generally reported a high degree of adherence to the recommendations. Sixty-five per cent indicated that the guidelines had influenced their habits in one or more of the areas being investigated, i.e. perioperative use of antibiotics, use of first line antibiotics for the treatment of pyoderma or UTI, and/or use of microbiological diagnostics. Perioperative use of antibiotics for clean surgeries was uncommon, irrespective of whether respondents had consulted the relevant recommendations or not. On the contrary, significant differences in the prescribing habits between guideline users and non-users were observed for pyoderma and UTI, suggesting an impact of the guidelines towards more prudent antimicrobial use. The diagnostic habits were examined in a subgroup of 63 guideline users. Of those, 19 and 39% reported frequent use of culture and susceptibility (C&S) testing prior to treating pyoderma and UTI respectively, whereas 68-84% reported C&S testing in the event of poor response to treatment or recurrence of infections. The main barriers for implementation of therapeutic recommendations were confidence in old prescribing practices and unavailability of recommended drugs. The main barriers for C&S testing were good experience with empiric treatment, and the owners' financial situation.The findings suggest a positive influence of the national antibiotic guidelines on prescription patterns among companion animal practitioners in Denmark. Sustained campaign activity is encouraged and should include promotion of bacteriological testing.