Does spirometry training in general practice improve quality and outcomes of asthma care?

Quantification of the Relationship of Pyridoxine and Spirometry Measurements in the United States Population

Background

There has been evidence to suggest associations between vitamins and lung function.

Objective

This study aimed to examine the association between vitamin B6 and spirometry values.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was done using National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys (NHANES) 2007-2012, which is a nationally representative, modern cohort. Spirometry, a clinical pulmonary function test, measured the amount and speed of air a person could exhale after taking the deepest possible breath after forceful expiratory volume at 1 s (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC). After determination of the relationship of the linearity of variables, univariable and multivariable models were fitted to investigate the effect of vitamin B6 on FEV1 and FVC. The National Center for Health Statistics Ethics Review Board granted permission for the study's data collection and analysis.

Results

Of 19,160 individuals who had complete information on vitamin B6 intake, FEV1, and FVC, it was found each mg of vitamin B6 intake was associated with increase in 166.41 mL of FEV1 (95% CI: 156.71, 176.12; P < 0.01) and 221.6 mL of FVC (95% CI: 209.62, 233.57; P < 0.01). After controlling for potential confounders (age, race, sex, body mass index, education, and income), multiple linear regression found that each mg of vitamin B6 was associated with increase in 25.98 mL of FEV1 (95% CI: 19.15, 32.80, P < 0.01) and 38.97 mL of FVC (95% CI: 30.65, 47.30, P < 0.01).

Conclusion

Increased vitamin B6 intake is associated with improvement in lung function. Further prospective studies are required to ascertain whether increased vitamin B6 can lead to increased long-term spirometry measurements and the specific therapeutic dose-response relationship.

Does the routine use of spirometry improve clinical outcomes in children?-A systematic review

Spirometry provides a quantitative measure of lung function and its use is recommended as an adjunct to enhance pediatric respiratory healthcare in many clinical practice guidelines. However, there is limited evidence confirming the benefits (or otherwise) of using spirometry from either clinician or patient perspectives. This systematic review aimed to determine the impact of spirometry on change in clinical decision making and patient-reported outcome measures. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, www.clinicaltrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, from inception to July 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use versus non-use of spirometry during standard clinical review in children aged <18 years with respiratory problems in clinics. We used Cochrane methodology. The search identified 3475 articles; 8 full-text articles were reviewed but only 1 study fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The single study involved two cluster RCTs of spirometry for children with asthma in general practice. The included study did not find any significant intergroup difference at the 12-month follow-up for asthma-related quality-of-life and clinical endpoints. However, the findings were limited by methodological weaknesses and high risks of bias. With a paucity of data, the clinical benefits of spirometry remain unclear. Thus, there is a clear need for RCTs that provide high-quality evidence to support the routine use of spirometry in children with suspected or known lung disease. Pending the availability of better evidence, we recommend that clinicians adhere to the current clinical practice recommendations.

Barriers and Enablers to Objective Testing for Asthma and COPD in Primary Care: A Systematic Review Using the Theoretical Domains Framework

BACKGROUND

Although guidelines have long recommended objective pulmonary function testing to diagnose asthma and chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD), many primary care patients receive a clinical diagnosis of asthma or COPD without objective testing. This often leads to unnecessary treatment with associated incremental costs and side-effects, and delays actual diagnosis.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the barriers and enablers to lung function testing for asthma and/or COPD in primary care?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We searched the literature for qualitative and quantitative studies reporting barriers and/or enablers to in-office or out-of-office lung function testing for diagnosing asthma and/or COPD, in primary care. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts; assessed methodological quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; and extracted data from included studies. Identified barriers and enablers were categorized using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), applying a pre-established coding manual.

RESULTS

We identified 7988 unique articles, reviewed 336 full-text articles, and included 18 studies in this systematic review. Of these 18, 12 were quantitative, 3 were qualitative, and 3 used mixed methods. All 18 addressed in-office testing and 11 also addressed out-of-office testing. Barriers and enablers overlapped for asthma and COPD, and in- and out-of-office settings. We identified more reported barriers (e.g. lack of knowledge of the usefulness of spirometry) than enablers (e.g. skills for performing reliable spirometry). Barriers mapped to 9 (of a possible 14) TDF domains (for both in- and out-of-office settings). Enablers mapped to three domains for in-office testing and five domains for out-of-office testing.

INTERPRETATION

Barriers to objective testing for airways disease in primary care are complex and span many theoretical domains. Correspondingly, a successful intervention must leverage multiple behaviour change techniques. A theory-based, multifaceted intervention to address underuse of diagnostic testing for asthma or COPD should now be developed and tested.

Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

BACKGROUND

Educational meetings are used widely by health personnel to provide continuing medical education and to promote implementation of innovations or translate new knowledge to change practice within healthcare systems. Previous reviews have concluded that educational meetings can result in small changes in behaviour, but that effects vary considerably. Investigations into which characteristics of educational meetings might lead to greater impact have yielded varying results, and factors that might explain heterogeneity in effects remain unclear. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

• To assess the effects of educational meetings on professional practice and healthcare outcomes • To investigate factors that might explain the heterogeneity of these effects SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, Science Citation Index Expanded (ISI Web of Knowledge), and Social Sciences Citation Index (last search in November 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised trials examining the effects of educational meetings on professional practice and patient outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. One review author assessed the certainty of evidence (GRADE) and discussed with a second review author. We included studies in the primary analysis that reported baseline data and that we judged to be at low or unclear risk of bias. For each comparison of dichotomous outcomes, we measured treatment effect as risk difference adjusted for baseline compliance. We expressed adjusted risk difference values as percentages, and we noted that values greater than zero favour educational meetings. For continuous outcomes, we measured treatment effect as per cent change relative to the control group mean post test, adjusted for baseline performance; we expressed values as percentages and noted that values greater than zero favour educational meetings. We report means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and, when appropriate, medians and interquartile ranges to facilitate comparisons to previous versions of this review. We analysed professional and patient outcomes separately and analysed 22 variables that were hypothesised a priori to explain heterogeneity. We explored heterogeneity by using univariate meta-regression and by inspecting violin plots.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 215 studies involving more than 28,167 health professionals, including 142 new studies for this update. Educational meetings as the single intervention or the main component of a multi-faceted intervention compared with no intervention • Probably slightly improve compliance with desired practice when compared with no intervention (65 comparisons, 7868 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 6.79%, 95% CI 6.62% to 6.97%; median 4.00%; interquartile range 0.29% to 13.00%); 28 comparisons, 2577 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 44.36%, 95% CI 41.98% to 46.75%; median 20.00%; interquartile range 6.00% to 65.00%)) • Probably slightly improve patient outcomes compared with no intervention (15 comparisons, 2530 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 3.30%, 95% CI 3.10% to 3.51%; median 0.10%; interquartile range 0.00% to 4.00%); 28 comparisons, 2294 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 8.35%, 95% CI 7.46% to 9.24%; median 2.00%; interquartile range -1.00% to 21.00%)) The certainty of evidence for this comparison is moderate. Educational meetings alone compared with other interventions • May improve compliance with desired practice when compared with other interventions (6 studies, 1402 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 9.99%, 95% CI 9.47% to 10.52%; median 16.5%; interquartile range 0.80% to 16.50%); 2 studies, 72 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 12.00%, 95% CI 9.16% to 14.84%; median 12.00%; interquartile range 0.00% to 24.00%)) No studies met the inclusion criteria for patient outcome measurements. The certainty of evidence for this comparison is low. Interactive educational meetings compared with didactic (lecture-based) educational meetings • We are uncertain of effects on compliance with desired practice (3 studies, 370 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes; 1 study, 192 health professionals for continuous outcomes) or on patient outcomes (1 study, 54 health professionals for continuous outcomes), as the certainty of evidence is very low Any other comparison of different formats and durations of educational meetings • We are uncertain of effects on compliance with desired practice (1 study, 19 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes; 1 study, 20 health professionals for continuous outcomes) or on patient outcomes (1 study, 113 health professionals for continuous outcomes), as the certainty of evidence is very low. Factors that might explain heterogeneity of effects Meta-regression suggests that larger estimates of effect are associated with studies judged to be at high risk of bias, with studies that had unit of analysis errors, and with studies in which the unit of analysis was the provider rather than the patient. Improved compliance with desired practice may be associated with: shorter meetings; poor baseline compliance; better attendance; shorter follow-up; professionals provided with additional take-home material; explicit building of educational meetings on theory; targeting of low- versus high-complexity behaviours; targeting of outcomes with high versus low importance; goal of increasing rather than decreasing behaviour; teaching by opinion leaders; and use of didactic versus interactive teaching methods. Pre-specified exploratory analyses of behaviour change techniques suggest that improved compliance with desired practice may be associated with use of a greater number of behaviour change techniques; goal-setting; provision of feedback; provision for social comparison; and provision for social support. Compliance may be decreased by the use of follow-up prompts, skills training, and barrier identification techniques.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with no intervention, educational meetings as the main component of an intervention probably slightly improve professional practice and, to a lesser extent, patient outcomes. Educational meetings may improve compliance with desired practice to a greater extent than other kinds of behaviour change interventions, such as text messages, fees, or office systems. Our findings suggest that multi-strategy approaches might positively influence the effects of educational meetings. Additional trials of educational meetings compared with no intervention are unlikely to change the review findings; therefore we will not further update this review comparison in the future. However, we note that randomised trials comparing different types of education are needed.

The Asthma Toolkit Bootcamp to Improve Rural Primary Care for Pediatric Asthma

BACKGROUND

Children with asthma living in rural areas receive most of their care from primary care providers who have variable knowledge of evidence-based guideline management.

OBJECTIVE

To test the capacity of the Asthma Toolkit Bootcamp program to improve primary care provider guidelines adherence and reduce health care utilization in rural children with asthma.

METHODS

The Asthma Toolkit Bootcamp program provided intensive training in National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines-based asthma care, evaluated within a RE-AIM implementation science framework. All primary care practices serving pediatric patients in rural La Plata County, Colorado, received (1) online instruction, (2) full-day training, and (3) follow-up, in-practice training 1 month later. Training focused on spirometry use, severity and control assessment, medication management, asthma action plan utilization, and adoption of a standardized visit protocol.

RESULTS

RE-AIM evaluation determined successful enrollment of practices in La Plata County (Reach) and provider uptake of evidence-based practices including spirometry (Adoption). Pediatric asthma patients receiving spirometry increased from 22% pretraining to 86% posttraining; severity assessment from 47% to 88%; and action plans from 40% to 86%. Significant improvements in health care utilization were observed among trained practices including a 10% decrease in emergency department visits, 35% decrease in hospital admissions, and 29% decrease in oral corticosteroid prescriptions (Effectiveness). Comparison practices showed no significant reductions in health care utilization. Participating providers reported that having the training in their own community, intense practice, a team-based approach, and cost-free materials including the spirometer and patient education materials were particularly helpful.

CONCLUSIONS

The Asthma Toolkit Bootcamp improved pediatric asthma care given by rural providers and reduced health care utilization among their patients.

Use of Asthma APGAR Tools in Primary Care Practices: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess patient and practice outcomes after introducing the Asthma APGAR (Activities, Persistent, triGGers, Asthma medications, Response to therapy) tools into primary care practices.

METHODS

We used a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled design in 18 US family medicine and pediatric practices to compare outcomes in patients with persistent asthma aged 5 to 45 years after introduction of the Asthma APGAR tools vs usual care. Patient outcomes included asthma control, quality of life, and emergency department (ED), urgent care, and inpatient hospital visits. The practice outcome was adherence to asthma guidelines.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1,066 patients: 245 children, 174 adolescents, and 647 adults. Sixty-five percent (692 patients) completed both baseline and 12-month questionnaires, allowing analysis for patient-reported outcomes. Electronic health record data were available for 1,063 patients (99.7%) for practice outcomes. The proportion of patients reporting an asthma-related ED, urgent care, or hospital visit in the final 6 months of the study was lower in the APGAR practices vs usual care practices (10.6% vs 20.9%, P = .004). The percentage of patients with "in control" asthma increased more between baseline and 1 year in the APGAR group vs usual care group (13.5% vs 3.4%, P =.0001 vs P =.86) with a trend toward better control scores and asthma-related quality of life in the former at 1 year (P ≤.06 and P = .06, respectively). APGAR practices improved their adherence to 3 or more guideline elements compared with usual care practices (20.7% increase vs 1.9% decrease, P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of the Asthma APGAR tools improves rates of asthma control; reduces asthma-related ED, urgent care, and hospital visits; and increases practices' adherence to asthma management guidelines.

Evidence for models of diagnostic service provision in the community: literature mapping exercise and focused rapid reviews

Background

Current NHS policy favours the expansion of diagnostic testing services in community and primary care settings.

Objectives

Our objectives were to identify current models of community diagnostic services in the UK and internationally and to assess the evidence for quality, safety and clinical effectiveness of such services. We were also interested in whether or not there is any evidence to support a broader range of diagnostic tests being provided in the community.

Review methods

We performed an initial broad literature mapping exercise to assess the quantity and nature of the published research evidence. The results were used to inform selection of three areas for investigation in more detail. We chose to perform focused reviews on logistics of diagnostic modalities in primary care (because the relevant issues differ widely between different types of test); diagnostic ultrasound (a key diagnostic technology affected by developments in equipment); and a diagnostic pathway (assessment of breathlessness) typically delivered wholly or partly in primary care/community settings. Databases and other sources searched, and search dates, were decided individually for each review. Quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews and primary studies of any design were eligible for inclusion.

Results

We identified seven main models of service that are delivered in primary care/community settings and in most cases with the possible involvement of community/primary care staff. Not all of these models are relevant to all types of diagnostic test. Overall, the evidence base for community- and primary care-based diagnostic services was limited, with very few controlled studies comparing different models of service. We found evidence from different settings that these services can reduce referrals to secondary care and allow more patients to be managed in primary care, but the quality of the research was generally poor. Evidence on the quality (including diagnostic accuracy and appropriateness of test ordering) and safety of such services was mixed.

Conclusions

In the absence of clear evidence of superior clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, the expansion of community-based services appears to be driven by other factors. These include policies to encourage moving services out of hospitals; the promise of reduced waiting times for diagnosis; the availability of a wider range of suitable tests and/or cheaper, more user-friendly equipment; and the ability of commercial providers to bid for NHS contracts. However, service development also faces a number of barriers, including issues related to staffing, training, governance and quality control.

Limitations

We have not attempted to cover all types of diagnostic technology in equal depth. Time and staff resources constrained our ability to carry out review processes in duplicate. Research in this field is limited by the difficulty of obtaining, from publicly available sources, up-to-date information about what models of service are commissioned, where and from which providers.

Future work

There is a need for research to compare the outcomes of different service models using robust study designs. Comparisons of ‘true’ community-based services with secondary care-based open-access services and rapid access clinics would be particularly valuable. There are specific needs for economic evaluations and for studies that incorporate effects on the wider health system. There appears to be no easy way of identifying what services are being commissioned from whom and keeping up with local evaluations of new services, suggesting a need to improve the availability of information in this area.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Effects of a 12-month multi-faceted mentoring intervention on knowledge, quality, and usage of spirometry in primary care: a before-and-after study

Background

Asthma is among the most common chronic diseases in adults. International guidelines have emphasized the importance of regular spirometry for asthma control evaluation. However, spirometry use in primary care remains low across jurisdictions. We sought to design and evaluate a knowledge translation intervention to address both the poor quality of spirometry and the underuse of spirometry in primary care.

Methods

We designed a 1-year intervention consisting of initial interactive education and hands-on training followed by unstructured peer expert mentoring (through an online portal, email, telephone, videoconference, fax, and/or in-person). We recruited physician and allied health mentees from across primary care sites in Ontario, Canada. We compared spirometry-related knowledge immediately before and after the 1-year intervention period and the quality of spirometry testing and the usage of spirometry in patients with asthma in the year before and the year of the intervention.

Results

Seven of 10 (70 %) invited sites participated, including 25/90 (28 %) invited allied health mentees and 23/68 (34 %) invited physician mentees. We recruited 7 physician mentors and 4 allied health mentors to form 3 mentor-mentee pods. Spirometry knowledge scores increased from 21.4 +/− 3.1 pre- to 27.3 +/− 3.5 (out of 35) (p < 0.01) post-intervention. Spirometry acceptability and repeatability criteria were met by 59/191 (30.9 %) spirometries and 86/193 (44.6 %) spirometries [odds ratio 1.7 (1.0, 3.0)], in the pre-intervention and intervention periods, respectively. Spirometry was ordered in 75/512 (14.6 %) and 129/336 (38.4 %) respiratory visits (p < 0.01), and in 20/3490 (0.6 %) and 36/2649 (1.4 %) non-respiratory visits (p < 0.01), in the pre-intervention and intervention periods, respectively.

Conclusions

A mentorship-based intervention involving physicians and allied health team members can enhance knowledge, quality, and actual use of spirometry in real world primary care settings. A future controlled study should assess the impact of this intervention on patient outcomes, its cost-effectiveness, and its sustainability.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12890-016-0220-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Spirometry and regular follow-up do not improve quality of life in children or adolescents with asthma: Cluster randomized controlled trials

RATIONALE

To determine whether spirometry and regular medical review improved quality of life or other outcomes in children and adolescents with asthma.

METHODS

We conducted two cluster randomized controlled trials. We recruited 238 asthma patients aged between 7 and 17 years from 56 general practices in South Eastern Australia. Participants were randomized to receive an intervention that included spirometry or usual care. The main outcome measure was asthma related quality of life.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were well matched between the intervention and control groups. Neither trial found any difference in asthma related quality of life between groups. However because of measurement properties, a formal meta-analysis could not be performed. Nor were there any significant effects of the intervention upon asthma attacks, limitation to usual activities, nocturnal cough, bother during physical activity, worry about asthma, or written asthma action plans.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings do not support more widespread use of spirometry for the management of childhood asthma in general practice, unless it is integrated into a complete management model.

Comparing the Asthma APGAR system and the Asthma Control Test™ in a multicenter primary care sample

OBJECTIVE

To compare asthma control assessment using the Asthma APGAR system, a tool developed by primary care clinicians, in a multicenter primary care sample with the Asthma Control Test (ACT™)/Childhood Asthma Control Test (CACT™), a tool developed by asthma specialists.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a substudy of a multicenter, randomized, controlled pragmatic trial that tests the effectiveness of the Asthma APGAR system in primary care practices. As part of the study, enrolled patients completed both the ACT™/CACT™ and the Asthma APGAR system between March 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011. Kappa and McNemar statistics were used to compare the results of questionnaires.

RESULTS

Of the 468 patients in our sample, 306 (65%) were classified as not controlled by the ACT™/CACT™ or the Asthma APGAR system. The overall agreement was 84.4%, with a kappa value of .68 (substantial agreement) and a McNemar test P value of .35 (suggesting no significant difference in the direction of disagreement). Of those with poor control as defined by the Asthma APGAR system, 23.8% (73) had no controller medications and 76.5% (234) were seldom or sometimes able to avoid identified triggers for their asthma. Of those who stated that they had been prescribed controller medications, 116 of 332 (35%) stated that they did not use the controller medication on a daily basis.

CONCLUSION

The Asthma APGAR system and the ACT™/CACT™ similarly assess asthma control in a multicenter primary care-based sample. The Asthma APGAR system identified an "actionable item" in more than 75% (234) of the individuals with poor asthma control, thus linking an assessment of poor asthma control with a management strategy.

Interventions to modify health care provider adherence to asthma guidelines: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Health care provider adherence to asthma guidelines is poor. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of interventions to improve health care providers' adherence to asthma guidelines on health care process and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Data sources included Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Educational Resources Information Center, PsycINFO, and Research and Development Resource Base in Continuing Medical Education up to July 2012. Paired investigators independently assessed study eligibility. Investigators abstracted data sequentially and independently graded the evidence.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight eligible studies were classified by intervention: decision support, organizational change, feedback and audit, clinical pharmacy support, education only, quality improvement/pay-for-performance, multicomponent, and information only. Half were randomized trials (n = 35). There was moderate evidence for increased prescriptions of controller medications for decision support, feedback and audit, and clinical pharmacy support and low-grade evidence for organizational change and multicomponent interventions. Moderate evidence supports the use of decision support and clinical pharmacy interventions to increase provision of patient self-education/asthma action plans. Moderate evidence supports use of decision support tools to reduce emergency department visits, and low-grade evidence suggests there is no benefit for this outcome with organizational change, education only, and quality improvement/pay-for-performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision support tools, feedback and audit, and clinical pharmacy support were most likely to improve provider adherence to asthma guidelines, as measured through health care process outcomes. There is a need to evaluate health care provider-targeted interventions with standardized outcomes.

Protocol for the asthma tools study: a pragmatic practice-based research network trial

Background

Asthma is common among children, adolescents, and adults. However, management of asthma often fails to follow evidence-based guidelines. Control assessments have been developed, validated against expert opinion, and disseminated. However, in primary care, assessment of control is only one step in asthma management. To facilitate integration of the evidence-based guidelines into practice, tools should also guide the next steps in care. The Asthma APGAR tools do just that, incorporating a control assessment as well as assessment of the most common reasons for inadequate and poor control. The Asthma APGAR tool is also linked to a care algorithm based on the 2007 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute asthma guidelines. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of implementation of the Asthma APGAR on patient asthma outcomes in primary care practices.

Methods

A total of 1400 patients aged 5–60 years with physician-diagnosed asthma are enrolled in 20 practice-based research network (PBRN) practices randomized to intervention or usual care. The primary outcomes are changes in patient self-reported asthma control, asthma-related quality of life, and rates of exacerbations documented in medical records over the 18–24 months of enrollment. Process measures related to implementation of the Asthma APGAR system into daily care will also be assessed using review of medical records. Qualitative assessments will be used to explore barriers to and facilitators for integrating the Asthma APGAR tools into daily practice in primary care.

Discussion

Data from this pivotal pragmatic study are intended to demonstrate the importance of linking assessment of asthma and management tools to improve asthma-related patient outcomes. The study is an effectiveness trial done in real-world PBRN practices using patient-oriented outcome measures, making it generalizable to the largest possible group of asthma care providers and primary care clinics.