Dataset Information

A Study to Investigate the Prevalence of Device-Specific Errors in Inhaler Technique in Adults With Airway Disease (The SCORES Study): Protocol for a Single Visit Prevalence Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It is a recurring theme in clinical practice that patients using inhaled medications via an inhaler do not use their device to a standard that allows for optimum therapeutic effect, and some studies have shown that up to 90% of people do not use their inhalers properly. Observation and correction of the inhaler technique by health care professionals is advised by both national and international guidelines and should be performed at every opportunity to ensure that the optimum inhaler technique is achieved by the user. This study will provide a greater understanding of the most frequent technique errors made by people using 13 different inhaler types.

Objective

This study aims to identify and compare inhaler technique errors and their prevalence in adults, using device-specific checklists in accordance with manufacturers' guidelines, for 13 specific inhaler types across all lung conditions and to correlate these errors with possible determinants of poor technique. It also aims to assess the error frequency at each step in the device-specific questionnaires and compare the error rates among device types.

Methods

In a single visit, participants using an inhaler included in the inclusion criteria will have their inhaler technique observed using an identical placebo device, which will be recorded using device-specific checklists, and technique-optimized, or switched to a suitable inhaler.

Results

The study is already underway, and it is anticipated that the results will be available by 2022.

Conclusions

The SCORES (Study to Investigate the Prevalence of Device-Specific Errors in Inhaler Technique in Adults With Airway Disease) study will ascertain the prevalence of device-specific inhaler technique errors at each step in the device-specific checklists, compare error rates among 13 device types, and correlate these errors with possible determinants of poor technique. Future work will involve the clarification and classification of these errors into critical and noncritical categories.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04262271; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04262271.

International registered report identifier (irrid)

DERR1-10.2196/26350.

SUBMITTER: De Vos R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8433873 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionGeneric substitution of inhaler devices is a relatively new phenomenon. The best patient outcomes associated with generic substitution occur when prescribers obtain consent from their patients to prescribe a generic inhaler and also teach their patient how to correctly use the new device. To date, no prospective observational study has assessed the level of training required for general practitioners (GPs) to demonstrate correct inhaler technique using two dry powder inhaler devices delivering fixed-dose combination budesonide/formoterol therapy. This study aims to (1) determine the level of training required for GPs to master and maintain correct IT when using two different dry powder inhalers that are able to be substituted in clinical practice and (2) determine the number and types of errors made by GPs on each device and inhaler device preference at each training visit.MethodA randomized, parallel-group cross-over study design was used to compare the inhaler technique of participants with a Spiromax® placebo device and a Turbuhaler® placebo device. This study consisted of two visits with each participant over a period of 4 ± 1 weeks (visit 1 and visit 2). A total of six levels of assessment and five levels of training were implemented as required. Level 1, no instruction; level 2, following use of written instruction; level 3, following viewing of instructional video; level 4, expert tuition from the researcher; level 5/level 6, repeats of expert tuition from the researcher when required. Participants progressed through each level and stopped at the point at which they demonstrated device mastery. At each level, trained researchers assessed the inhaler technique of the participants. Participants were also surveyed about their previous inhaler use and training.ResultsIn total, 228 GPs participated in this study by demonstrating their ability to use a Turbuhaler® and a Spiromax® device. There was no significant difference between the proportion of participants who demonstrated device mastery with the Turbuhaler® compared with the Spiromax® at level 1, (no instruction), (119/228 (52%) versus 131/228 (57%), respectively, n = 228, p = 0.323 (McNemar's test of paired data). All but one participant had demonstrated correct inhaler technique for both devices by level 3(instructional video). There was a significant difference between the proportion of participants who demonstrated maintenance of device mastery with the Turbuhaler® compared with the Spiromax® at visit 2, level 1 (127/177 (72%) versus 151/177 (85%) respectively, p = 0.003; McNemar's test of paired data). All but two participants achieved device mastery by level 3, visit 2. More participants reported previous training with the Turbuhaler® than with Spiromax®.DiscussionThis study demonstrates that GPs are able to equally demonstrate correct use of the Turbuhaler® and Spiromax® devices, even though most had not received training on a Spiromax® device prior to this study. The significance of being able to demonstrate correct technique on these two devices equally has ramifications on practice and supported generic substitution of inhaler devices at the point of prescribing, as the most impactful measure a GP can take to ensure effective use of inhaled medicine is the correct demonstration of inhaler technique.