Dataset Information

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on asthma exacerbations: Retrospective cohort study of over 500,000 patients in a national English primary care database.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Several countries reported a substantial reduction in asthma exacerbations associated with COVID-19 pandemic-related restrictions. However, it is not known if these early reported declines were short-term and if these have rebounded to pre-pandemic levels following easing of lockdown restrictions.

Methods

We undertook a retrospective, cohort study of all asthma patients in a national primary care database of almost 10 million patients, Optimum Patient Care Database (OPCRD), identified from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2015, using a previously validated algorithm. We subsequently followed the identified cohort of asthma patients from January 1, 2016, to October 3, 2021, and identified every asthma exacerbation episode with a validated algorithm. To quantify any pandemic-related change in exacerbations, we created a control time-series (mean of 2016-2019) and then compared the change in exacerbation rate in 2020-2021 over quarterly periods when compared with the control period (the pre-pandemic period). We undertook overall and stratified analyses by age group, sex, and English region.

Findings

We identified 100,362 asthma patients (502,669 patient-years) from across England who experienced at least one exacerbation episode (298,390 exacerbation episodes during the entire follow-up). Except for the first quarter of 2020, the exacerbation rates were substantially lower (>25%) during all quarters in 2020-2021 when compared with the rates during 2016-2019 (39.7% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 34.6, 44.9) in quarter-2, 2020; 46.5% (95%CI: 36.7, 56.4) in quarter-3, 2020; 56.3% (95%CI: 48.7, 63.9) in quarter-4, 2020; 63.2% (95%CI: 53.9, 72.5) in quarter-1, 2021; 57.7% (95%CI: 52.9, 62.4) in quarter-2, 2021; 53.3% (95%CI: 43.8, 62.8) in quarter-3, 2021).

Interpretation

There was a substantial and persistent reduction in asthma exacerbations across England over the first 18 months after the first lockdown. This is unlikely to be adequately explained by changes in health-seeking behaviour, pandemic-related healthcare service disruption, or any air-quality improvements.

Funding

Asthma UK, Health Data Research UK (HDR UK), Medical Research Council (MRC), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

SUBMITTER: Shah SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9213032 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA growing number of countries legislate for nurses to have medication prescribing authority although it is a contested issue. The UK is one of these countries, giving authority to nurses with additional qualifications since 1992 and incrementally widened the scope of nurse prescribing, most recently in 2006. The policy intention for primary care was to improve efficiency in service delivery through flexibility between medical and nursing roles. The extent to which this has occurred is uncertain. This study investigated nurses prescribing activities, over time, in English primary care settings.MethodsA secondary data analysis of a national primary care prescription database 2006-2010 and National Health Service workforce database 2010 was undertaken.ResultsThe numbers of nurses issuing more than one prescription annually in primary care rose from 13,391 in 2006 to 15,841 in 2010. This represented forty three percent of those with prescribing qualifications and authorisation from their employers. The number of items prescribed by nurses rose from 1.1% to 1.5% of total items prescribed in primary care. The greatest volume of items prescribed by independent nurse prescribers was in the category of penicillins, followed by dressings. However, the category where independent nurse prescribers contributed the largest proportion of all primary care prescriptions was emergency contraception (9.1%). In contrast, community practitioner nurse prescribers' greatest volume and contribution was in the category of gel and colloid dressings (27%), medicated stockings (14.5%) and incontinence appliances (4.2%). There were slightly higher rates of nurse prescribing in areas with higher levels of socio-economic deprivation and fewer physicians per capita, but the correlations were weak and warrant further investigation.ConclusionsThe percentage of prescriptions written by nurses in primary care in England is very small in comparison to physicians. Our findings suggest that nurse prescribing is used where it is seen to have relative advantage by all stakeholders, in particular when it supports efficiency in nursing practice and also health promotion activities by nurses in general practice. It is in these areas that there appears to be flexibility in the prescribing role between nurses and general practitioners.

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:ObjectivesTo develop a transparent and reproducible measure for hospitals that can indicate when deaths in hospital or within 30 days of discharge are high relative to other hospitals, given the characteristics of the patients in that hospital, and to investigate those factors that have the greatest effect in changing the rank of a hospital, whether interactions exist between those factors, and the stability of the measure over time.DesignRetrospective cross sectional study of admissions to English hospitals.SettingHospital episode statistics for England from 1 April 2005 to 30 September 2010, with linked mortality data from the Office for National Statistics.Participants36.5 million completed hospital admissions in 146 general and 72 specialist trusts.Main outcome measuresDeaths within hospital or within 30 days of discharge from hospital.ResultsThe predictors that were used in the final model comprised admission diagnosis, age, sex, type of admission, and comorbidity. The percentage of people admitted who died in hospital or within 30 days of discharge was 4.2% for males and 4.5% for females. Emergency admissions comprised 75% of all admissions and 5.5% died, in contrast to 0.8% who died after an elective admission. The percentage who died with a Charlson comorbidity score of 0 was 2% in contrast with 15% who died with a score greater than 5. Given these variables, the relative standardised mortality rates of the hospitals were not noticeably changed by adjusting for the area level deprivation and number of previous emergency visits to hospital. There was little evidence that including interaction terms changed the relative values by any great amount. Using these predictors the summary hospital mortality index (SHMI) was derived. For 2007/8 the model had a C statistic of 0.911 and accounted for 81% of the variability of between hospital mortality. A random effects funnel plot was used to identify outlying hospitals. The outliers from the SHMI over the period 2005-10 have previously been identified using other mortality indicators.ConclusionThe SHMI is a relatively simple tool that can be used in conjunction with other information to identify hospitals that may need further investigation.