The 'missing millions': Where do we find them?

Cluster randomised controlled trial of specialist-led integrated COPD care (INTEGR COPD)

OBJECTIVE

Studies in hospital settings demonstrate that there is greater guideline adherence when care is delivered by a respiratory specialist, however, this has not been explored in primary care. The aim of this study is to determine the impact integrating respiratory specialists into primary care has on the delivery of guideline adherent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care.

METHODS

18 general practitioner (GP) practices were randomised to provide either usual or specialist-led COPD care. Patients at participating practices were included if they had an existing diagnosis of COPD. Outcomes were measured at the individual patient level. The primary outcome was guideline adherence, assessed as achieving four or more items of the COPD care bundle. Secondary outcome measures included quality of life, number of exacerbations, number of COPD-related hospitalisations and respiratory outpatient attendances.

RESULTS

586 patients from 10 practices randomised to the intervention and 656 patients from 8 practices randomised to the control arm of the study were included. The integration of respiratory specialists into GP practices led to a statistically significant (p<0.001) improvement in the provision of guideline adherent care when compared with usual care in this cohort (92.7% vs 70.1%) (OR 4.14, 95% CI 2.14 to 8.03).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to demonstrate that guideline adherence is improved through the integration of respiratory specialists into GP practices to deliver annual COPD reviews. To facilitate changes in current healthcare practice and policy, the findings of this paper need to be viewed in combination with qualitative research exploring the acceptability of specialist integration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03482700.

Patterns of care in the management of high-risk COPD in the US (2011-2019): an observational study for the CONQUEST quality improvement program

Background

In this study, we compare management of patients with high-risk chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States to national and international guidelines and quality standards, including the COllaboratioN on QUality improvement initiative for achieving Excellence in STandards of COPD care (CONQUEST).

Methods

Patients were identified from the DARTNet Practice Performance Registry and categorized into three high-risk cohorts in each year from 2011 to 2019: newly diagnosed (≤12 months after diagnosis), already diagnosed, and patients with potential undiagnosed COPD. Patients were considered high-risk if they had a history of exacerbations or likely exacerbations (respiratory consult with prescribed medication). Descriptive statistics for 2019 are reported, along with annual trends.

Findings

In 2019, 10% (n = 16,610/167,197) of patients met high-risk criteria. Evidence of spirometry for diagnosis was low; in 2019, 81% (n = 1228/1523) of patients newly diagnosed at high-risk had no record of spirometry/peak expiratory flow in the 12 months pre- or post-diagnosis and 43% (n = 651/1523) had no record of COPD symptom review. Among those newly and already diagnosed at high-risk, 52% (n = 4830/9350) had no evidence of COPD medication.

Interpretation

Findings suggest inconsistent adherence to evidence-based guidelines, and opportunities to improve identification, documentation of services, assessment, therapeutic intervention, and follow-up of patients with COPD.

Funding

This study was conducted by the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) Pte Ltd and was partially funded by Optimum Patient Care Global and AstraZeneca Ltd. No funding was received by the Observational & Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (OPRI) for its contribution.

COVID-19-The impact of variable and "low normal" pulse oximetry scores on Oximetry@Home services and clinical pathways: Confounding variables?

COVID‐19 Oximetry@Home services have been commissioned nationally. This allows higher‐risk patients with mild COVID‐19 symptoms to remain at home, being supplied with a Pulse Oximeter to measure their oxygen saturation (SpO₂) two to three times daily for two weeks. Patients record their readings manually or electronically which are monitored by a clinical team. Clinical decisions, using an algorithm, are based on SpO₂ readings in a narrow range with 1–2 point changes potentially affecting care. In this article, we discussed the problem that multiple factors affect SpO₂ readings, and that some “normal” individuals will have “low‐normal” scores at the threshold of clinical management, without any known respiratory problem. We discuss the potential magnitude of this problem based on the associated literature and consider how this will have an impact on the use of the Oximetry@home services, potentially partially confounding their purpose; to reduce face‐to‐face medical care.