Related Articles

Background

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a leading cause of disability, hospitalization, and premature mortality. General practice is well placed to diagnose and manage COPD, but there is a significant gap between evidence and current practice, with a low level of awareness and implementation of clinical practice guidelines. Under-diagnosis of COPD is a world-wide problem, limiting the benefit that could potentially be achieved through early intervention strategies such as smoking cessation, dietary advice, and exercise. General practice is moving towards more structured chronic disease management, and the increasing involvement of practice nurses in delivering chronic care.

Design

A pragmatic cluster randomised trial will test the hypothesis that intervention by a practice nurse-general practitioner (GP) team leads to improved health-related quality of life and greater adherence with clinical practice guidelines for patients with newly-diagnosed COPD, compared with usual care. Forty general practices in greater metropolitan Sydney Australia will be recruited to identify patients at risk of COPD and invite them to attend a case finding appointment. Practices will be randomised to deliver either practice nurse-GP partnership care, or usual care, to patients newly-diagnosed with COPD.

The active intervention will involve the practice nurse and GP working in partnership with the patient in developing and implementing a care plan involving (as appropriate), smoking cessation, immunisation, pulmonary rehabilitation, medication review, assessment and correction of inhaler technique, nutritional advice, management of psycho-social issues, patient education, and management of co-morbidities.

The primary outcome measure is health-related quality of life, assessed with the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire 12 months after diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures include validated disease-specific and general health related quality of life measures, smoking and immunisation status, medications, inhaler technique, and lung function. Outcomes will be assessed by project officers blinded to patients’ randomization groups.

Discussion

This study will use proven case-finding methods to identify patients with undiagnosed COPD in general practice, where improved care has the potential for substantial benefit in health and healthcare utilization. The study provides the capacity to trial a new model of team-based assessment and management of newly diagnosed COPD in Australian primary care.

Trial registration

ACTRN12610000592044\

Background

A key strategy in improving care for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the provision of pulmonary rehabilitation programmes. Pulmonary rehabilitation programmes have been successful in improving patients' sense of dyspnoea and Health Related Quality of Life. However, the effectiveness of structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programmes delivered at the level of the general practice on the health status of people with COPD remains uncertain and there is a need for a robust and fair assessment of this. The PRINCE study will evaluate the effectiveness of a Structured Education Pulmonary Rehabilitation Programme (SEPRP), delivered at the level of the general practice, on the health status of people with COPD.

Methods/Design

The PRINCE Trial is a two-armed, single blind cluster randomised trial conducted in the primary care setting in Ireland. Randomisation to control and intervention is at the level of the General Practice. Participants in the intervention arm will receive a SEPRP and those allocated to the control arm will receive usual care. Delivery of the SEPRP will be by a practice nurse and physiotherapist in the General Practice (GP) site. The primary outcome measure of the study will be health status as measured by the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ). Blinded outcome assessment will be undertaken at baseline and at twelve-fourteen weeks after completion of the programme. A comparison of outcomes between the intervention and control sites will be made to examine if differences exist and, if so, to what extent between control and experimental groups. Sample size calculations estimate that 32 practices with a minimum of 10 participants per practice are required, in total, to be randomised to control and intervention arms for power of at least 80% with alpha levels of 0.05, to determine a clinically significant change of 0.5 units in the CRQ. A cost effectiveness analysis will also be conducted.

Discussion

The results of this trial are directly applicable to primary care settings in Ireland. Should a SEPRP delivered by practice nurses and physiotherapists in primary care be found to be effective in improving patients' sense of dyspnoea and HRQoL, then the findings would be applicable to many thousands of individuals in Ireland and beyond.

Trial registration

ISRCTN: ISRCTN52403063

Objectives

To determine the effectiveness of early assisted discharge for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, with home care provided by generic community nurses, compared with usual hospital care.

Design

Prospective, randomised controlled and multicentre trial with 3-month follow-up.

Setting

Five hospitals and three home care organisations in the Netherlands.

Participants

Patients admitted to the hospital with an exacerbation of COPD. Patients with no or limited improvement of respiratory symptoms and patients with severe unstable comorbidities, social problems or those unable to visit the toilet independently were excluded.

Intervention

Early discharge from hospital after 3 days inpatient treatment. Home visits by generic community nurses. Primary outcome measure was change in health status measured by the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ). Treatment failures, readmissions, mortality and change in generic health-related quality of life (HRQL) were secondary outcome measures.

Results

139 patients were randomised. No difference between groups was found in change in CCQ score at day 7 (difference in mean change 0.29 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.61)) or at 3 months (difference in mean change 0.04 (95% CI –0.40 to 0.49)). No difference was found in secondary outcomes. At day 7 there was a significant difference in change in generic HRQL, favouring usual hospital care.

Conclusions

While patients’ disease-specific health status after 7-day treatment tended to be somewhat better in the usual hospital care group, the difference was small and not clinically relevant or statistically significant. After 3 months, the difference had disappeared. A significant difference in generic HRQL at the end of the treatment had disappeared after 3 months and there was no difference in treatment failures, readmissions or mortality. Early assisted discharge with community nursing is feasible and an alternative to usual hospital care for selected patients with an acute COPD exacerbation.

Trial registration: NetherlandsTrialRegister NTR 1129.

Background

Adoption and maintenance of healthy behaviours is pivotal to chronic disease self-management as this influences disease progression and impact. This qualitative study investigated health behaviour changes adopted by participants with moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recruited to a randomised controlled study of telephone-delivered health-mentoring.

Methods

Community nurses trained as health-mentors used a patient-centred approach with COPD patients recruited in general practice to facilitate behaviour change, using a framework of health behaviours; ‘SNAPPS’ Smoking, Nutrition, Alcohol, Physical activity, Psychosocial well-being, and Symptom management, through regular phone calls over 12 months. Semi-structured interviews in a purposive sample sought feedback on mentoring and behaviour changes adopted. Interviews were analysed using iterative thematic and interpretative content approaches by two investigators.

Results

Of 90 participants allocated to health-mentoring, 65 (72%) were invited for interview at 12-month follow up. The 44 interviewees, 75% with moderate COPD, had a median of 13 mentor contacts over 12 months, range 5–20. Interviewed participants (n = 44, 55% male, 43% current smokers, 75% moderate COPD) were representative of the total group with a mean age 65 years while 82% had at least one additional co-morbid chronic condition. Telephone delivery was highly acceptable and enabled good rapport. Participants rated ‘being listened to by a caring health professional’ as very valuable. Three participant groups were identified by attitude to health behaviour change: 14 (32%) actively making changes; 18 (41%) open to and making some changes and 12 (27%) more resistant to change. COPD severity or current smoking status was not related to group category. Mentoring increased awareness of COPD effects, helping develop and personalise behaviour change strategies, even by those not actively making changes. Physical activity was targeted by 43 (98%) participants and smoking by 14 (74%) current smokers with 21% reporting quitting. Motivation to maintain changes was increased by mentor support.

Conclusions

Telephone delivery of health-mentoring is feasible and acceptable to people with COPD in primary care. Health behaviours targeted by this population, mostly with moderate disease, were mainly physical activity and smoking reduction or cessation. Health-mentoring increased motivation and assisted people to develop strategies for making and sustaining beneficial change.

Trial registration

ACTR12608000112368

Objective To assess the long term effects of two different modes of disease management (comprehensive self management and routine monitoring) on quality of life (primary objective), frequency and patients’ management of exacerbations, and self efficacy (secondary objectives) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in general practice.

Design 24 month, multicentre, investigator blinded, three arm, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

Setting 15 general practices in the eastern part of the Netherlands.

Participants Patients with COPD confirmed by spirometry and treated in general practice. Patients with very severe COPD or treated by a respiratory physician were excluded.

Interventions A comprehensive self management programme as an adjunct to usual care, consisting of four tailored sessions with ongoing telephone support by a practice nurse; routine monitoring as an adjunct to usual care, consisting of 2-4 structured consultations a year with a practice nurse; or usual care alone (contacts with the general practitioner at the patients’ own initiative).

Outcome measures The primary outcome was the change in COPD specific quality of life at 24 months as measured with the chronic respiratory questionnaire total score. Secondary outcomes were chronic respiratory questionnaire domain scores, frequency and patients’ management of exacerbations measured with the Nijmegen telephonic exacerbation assessment system, and self efficacy measured with the COPD self-efficacy scale.

Results 165 patients were allocated to self management (n=55), routine monitoring (n=55), or usual care alone (n=55). At 24 months, adjusted treatment differences between the three groups in mean chronic respiratory questionnaire total score were not significant. Secondary outcomes did not differ, except for exacerbation management. Compared with usual care, more exacerbations in the self management group were managed with bronchodilators (odds ratio 2.81, 95% confidence interval 1.16 to 6.82) and with prednisolone, antibiotics, or both (3.98, 1.10 to 15.58).

Conclusions Comprehensive self management or routine monitoring did not show long term benefits in terms of quality of life or self efficacy over usual care alone in COPD patients in general practice. Patients in the self management group seemed to be more capable of appropriately managing exacerbations than did those in the usual care group.

Trial registration Clinical trials NCT00128765.

Background

Guidelines recommend inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Most COPD patients are managed in primary care and receive ICS long-term and irrespective of severity. The effect of withdrawing ICS from COPD patients in primary care is unknown.

Methods

In a pragmatic randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 31 practices, 260 COPD patients stopped their usual ICS (median duration of use 8 years) and were allocated to 500 mcg fluticasone propionate twice daily (n = 128), or placebo (n = 132). Follow-up assessments took place at three monthly intervals for a year at the patients' practice. Our primary outcome was COPD exacerbation frequency. Secondary outcomes were time to first COPD exacerbation, reported symptoms, peak expiratory flow rate and reliever inhaler use, and lung function and health related quality of life.

Results

In patients randomised to placebo, COPD exacerbation risk over one year was RR: 1.11 (CI: 0.91–1.36). Patients taking placebo were more likely to return to their usual ICS following exacerbation, placebo: 61/128 (48%); fluticasone: 34/132 (26%), OR: 2.35 (CI: 1.38–4.05). Exacerbation risk whilst taking randomised treatment was significantly raised in the placebo group 1.48 (CI: 1.17–1.86). Patients taking placebo exacerbated earlier (median time to first exacerbation: placebo (days): 44 (CI: 29–59); fluticasone: 63 (CI: 53–74), log rank 3.81, P = 0.05) and reported increased wheeze. In a post-hoc analysis, patients with mild COPD taking placebo had increased exacerbation risk RR: 1.94 (CI: 1.20–3.14).

Conclusion

Withdrawal of long-term ICS in COPD patients in primary care increases risk of exacerbation shortens time to exacerbation and causes symptom deterioration. Patients with mild COPD may be at increased risk of exacerbation after withdrawal.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00440687

Background

Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) are the main cause for hospitalisation. These hospitalisations result in a high pressure on hospital beds and high health care costs. Because of the increasing prevalence of COPD this will only become worse. Hospital at home is one of the alternatives that has been proved to be a safe alternative for hospitalisation in COPD. Most schemes are early assisted discharge schemes with specialised respiratory nurses providing care at home. Whether this type of service is cost-effective depends on the setting in which it is delivered and the way in which it is organised.

Methods/Design

GO AHEAD (Assessment Of Going Home under Early Assisted Discharge) is a 3-months, randomised controlled, multi-centre clinical trial. Patients admitted to hospital for a COPD exacerbation are either discharged on the fourth day of admission and further treated at home, or receive usual inpatient hospital care. Home treatment is supervised by general nurses. Primary outcome is the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of an early assisted discharge intervention in comparison with usual inpatient hospital care for patients hospitalised with a COPD exacerbation. Secondary outcomes include effects on quality of life, primary informal caregiver burden and patient and primary caregiver satisfaction. Additionally, a discrete choice experiment is performed to provide insight in patient and informal caregiver preferences for different treatment characteristics. Measurements are performed on the first day of admission and 3 days, 7 days, 1 month and 3 months thereafter. Ethical approval has been obtained and the study has been registered.

Discussion

This article describes the study protocol of the GO AHEAD study. Early assisted discharge could be an effective and cost-effective method to reduce length of hospital stay in the Netherlands which is beneficial for patients and society. If effectiveness and cost-effectiveness can be proven, implementation in the Dutch health care system should be considered.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Register NTR1129.

Objectives

To evaluate usefulness of limited community based care for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease after discharge from hospital.

Design

Randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Liverpool Health Service and Macarthur Health Service in outer metropolitan Sydney between September 1999 and July 2000.

Participants

177 patients randomised into an intervention group (84 patients) and a control group (93 patients) which received current usual care.

Interventions

Home visits by community nurse at one and four weeks after discharge and preventive general practitioner care.

Main outcome measures

Frequency of patients' presentation and admission to hospital; changes in patients' disease-specific quality of life, measured with St George's respiratory questionnaire, over three months after discharge; patients' knowledge of illness, self management, and satisfaction with care at discharge and three months later; frequency of general practitioner and nurse visits and their satisfaction with care.

Results

Intervention and control groups showed no differences in presentation or admission to hospital or in overall functional status. However, the intervention group improved their activity scores and the control group worsened their symptom scores. While intervention group patients received more visits from community nurses and were more satisfied with their care, involvement of general practitioners was much less (with only 31% (22) remembering receiving a care plan). Patients in the intervention group had higher knowledge scores and were more satisfied. There were no differences in general practitioner visits or management.

Conclusions

This brief intervention after acute care improved patients' knowledge and some aspects of quality of life. However, it failed to prevent presentation and readmission to hospital.

What is already known on this topicPatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease often require hospital care and have impaired quality of lifeHome based care programmes provide viable alternatives to hospital admission for some patients at lower costWhat this study addsA brief, home based nurse intervention after acute care improved patients' knowledge but failed to reduce subsequent presentations or admissions to hospitalAdditional interventions or interventions earlier in the disease process may be required to reduce hospitalisations

Background

Guidelines recommend multifactorial intervention programmes to prevent falls in older adults but there are few randomised controlled trials in a real life health care setting. We describe the rationale, intervention, study design, recruitment strategies and baseline characteristics of participants in a randomised controlled trial of a multifactorial falls prevention programme in primary health care.

Methods

Participants are patients from 19 primary care practices in Hutt Valley, New Zealand aged 75 years and over who have fallen in the past year and live independently. Two recruitment strategies were used – waiting room screening and practice mail-out. Intervention participants receive a community based nurse assessment of falls and fracture risk factors, home hazards, referral to appropriate community interventions, and strength and balance exercise programme. Control participants receive usual care and social visits. Outcome measures include number of falls and injuries over 12 months, balance, strength, falls efficacy, activities of daily living, quality of life, and physical activity levels.

Results

312 participants were recruited (69% women). Of those who had fallen, 58% of people screened in the practice waiting rooms and 40% when screened by practice letter were willing to participate. Characteristics of participants recruited using the two methods are similar (p > 0.05). Mean age of all participants was 81 years (SD 5). On average participants have 7 medical conditions, take 5.5 medications (29% on psychotropics) with a median of 2 falls (interquartile range 1, 3) in the previous year.

Conclusion

The two recruitment strategies and the community based intervention delivery were feasible and successful, identifying a high risk group with multiple falls. Recruitment in the waiting room gave higher response rates but was less efficient than practice mail-out. Testing the effectiveness of an evidence based intervention in a 'real life' setting is important.

Trial registration

Australian Clinical Trials Register ID 12605000054617.

Objectives

To determine the effectiveness of collaborative care in reducing depression in primary care patients with diabetes or heart disease using practice nurses as case managers.

Design

A two-arm open randomised cluster trial with wait-list control for 6 months. The intervention was followed over 12 months.

Setting

Eleven Australian general practices, five randomly allocated to the intervention and six to the control.

Participants

400 primary care patients (206 intervention, 194 control) with depression and type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease or both.

Intervention

The practice nurse acted as a case manager identifying depression, reviewing pathology results, lifestyle risk factors and patient goals and priorities. Usual care continued in the controls.

Main outcome measure

A five-point reduction in depression scores for patients with moderate-to-severe depression. Secondary outcome was improvements in physiological measures.

Results

Mean depression scores after 6 months of intervention for patients with moderate-to-severe depression decreased by 5.7±1.3 compared with 4.3±1.2 in control, a significant (p=0.012) difference. (The plus–minus is the 95% confidence range.) Intervention practices demonstrated adherence to treatment guidelines and intensification of treatment for depression, where exercise increased by 19%, referrals to exercise programmes by 16%, referrals to mental health workers (MHWs) by 7% and visits to MHWs by 17%. Control-practice exercise did not change, whereas referrals to exercise programmes dropped by 5% and visits to MHWs by 3%. Only referrals to MHW increased by 12%. Intervention improvements were sustained over 12 months, with a significant (p=0.015) decrease in 10-year cardiovascular disease risk from 27.4±3.4% to 24.8±3.8%. A review of patients indicated that the study's safety protocols were followed.

Conclusions

TrueBlue participants showed significantly improved depression and treatment intensification, sustained over 12 months of intervention and reduced 10-year cardiovascular disease risk. Collaborative care using practice nurses appears to be an effective primary care intervention.

Trial registration

ACTRN12609000333213 (Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry).

OBJECTIVE

To review the diagnosis, assessment of severity, and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and to address the systemic manifestations associated with COPD.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

PubMed was searched from January 2000 to December 2007 using the key words COPD, practice guidelines, randomized controlled trials, therapy, and health outcomes. The Canadian Thoracic Society guideline on management of COPD was carefully reviewed. The authors, who have extensive experience in care of patients with COPD, provided expert opinion.

MAIN MESSAGE

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a common systemic disease caused primarily by smoking. Spirometry is essential for diagnosis of COPD and should be integrated into primary care practice. Pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapy improves symptoms, capacity for exercise, and quality of life. Smoking cessation is the only intervention shown to slow disease progression. The systemic manifestations and comorbidity associated with COPD need to be identified and addressed to optimize health and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

An evidence-based approach to managing COPD along with a primary care chronic disease management model could improve quality of life for patients with COPD.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effectiveness of an intensive small group education and peer review programme aimed at implementing national guidelines on asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on care provision by general practitioners (GPs) and on patient outcomes. DESIGN: A randomised experimental study with pre-measurement and post- measurement (after one year) in an experimental group and a control group in Dutch general practice. SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTION: Two groups of GPs were formed and randomised. The education and peer review group (17 GPs with 210 patients) had an intervention consisting of an interactive group education and peer review programme (four sessions each lasting two hours). The control group consisted of 17 GPs with 223 patients (no intervention). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge, skills, opinion about asthma and COPD care, presence of equipment in practice; actual performance about peakflow measurement, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment; asthma symptoms (Dutch Medical Research Council), smoking habits, exacerbation ratio, and disease specific quality of life (QOL-RIQ). Data were collected by a written questionnaire for GPs, by self recording of consultations by GPs, and by a written self administered questionnaire for adult patients with asthma/COPD. RESULTS: Data from 34 GP questionnaires, 433 patient questionnaires, and recordings from 934 consultations/visits and 350 repeat prescriptions were available. Compared with the control group there were only significant changes for self estimated skills (+16%, 95% confidence interval 4% to 26%) and presence of peakflow meters in practice (+18%, p < 0.05). No significant changes were found for provided care and patient outcomes compared with the control group. In the subgroup of more severe patients, the group of older patients, and in the group of patients not using anti-inflammatory medication at baseline, no significant changes compared with the control group were seen in patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: Except for two aspects, intensive small group education and peer review in asthma and COPD care do not seem to be effective in changing relevant aspects of the provided care by GPs in accordance with guidelines, nor in changing patients' health status.

Background

Recruitment of patients by health professionals is reported as one of the most challenging steps when undertaking studies in primary care settings. Numerous investigations of the barriers to patient recruitment in trials which recruit patients to receive an intervention have been published. However, we are not aware of any studies that have reported on the recruitment barriers as perceived by health professionals to recruiting patients into cluster randomised trials where patients do not directly receive an intervention. This particular subtype of cluster trial is commonly termed a professional-cluster trial. The aim of this study was to investigate factors that contributed to general practitioners recruitment of patients in a professional-cluster trial which evaluated the effectiveness of an intervention to increase general practitioners adherence to a clinical practice guideline for acute low-back pain.

Method

General practitioners enrolled in the study were posted a questionnaire, consisting of quantitative items and an open-ended question, to assess possible reasons for poor patient recruitment. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise quantitative items and responses to the open-ended question were coded into categories.

Results

Seventy-nine general practitioners completed at least one item (79/94 = 84%), representing 68 practices (85% practice response rate), and 44 provided a response to the open-ended question. General practitioners recalled inviting a median of two patients with acute low-back pain to participate in the trial over a seven-month period; they reported that they intended to recruit patients, but forgot to approach patients to participate; and they did not perceive that patients had a strong interest or disinterest in participating. Additional open-ended comments were generally consistent with the quantitative data.

Conclusion

A number of barriers to the recruitment of patients with acute low-back pain by general practitioners in a professional-cluster trial were identified. These barriers were similar to those that have been identified in the literature surrounding the recruitment of patients in individual patient randomised trials. To advance the evidence base for patient recruitment strategies in primary care settings, trialists undertaking professional-cluster trials need to develop and evaluate patient recruitment strategies that minimise the efforts required by practice staff to recruit patients, while also meeting privacy and ethical responsibilities and minimising the risk of selection bias.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012606000098538 (date registered 14/03/2006).

Background

Good blood pressure (BP) control reduces the risk of complications in people with type 2 diabetes, yet many do not achieve this. Guidelines for managing hypertension recommend increasing antihypertensive medications until control is achieved, but the effect of such recommendations in routine primary care is unknown.

Aim

To evaluate the effectiveness of a BP treatment algorithm in primary care patients with type 2 diabetes.

Design of study

A cluster randomised controlled trial of 1534 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Setting

Forty-two practices in Nottingham, UK.

Method

Practices were randomised to continue usual care or to use a treatment algorithm designed so that practice nurses and GPs would increase antihypertensive treatment in steps until the target of 140/80mmHg was reached. Participants were assessed by a clinical interview and case note review at recruitment and at 1 year. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of participants achieving target BP at 1 year.

Results

At 1 year there was no difference between the proportions of participants with well controlled BP in the intervention and control arms (36.6% versus 34.3%; P = 0.27). Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures were identical in the two arms (143/78 mmHg). There was some evidence that participants in the intervention arm were more likely to be receiving higher doses of their antihypertensive drugs, although there was no significant difference in the number of different antihypertensive drugs prescribed.

Participants in the intervention arm had a higher rate of primary care BP-related consultations over 12 months than those receiving usual care (rate ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.26 to 1.88, P<0.001).

Conclusion

Despite increased monitoring and possibly higher doses of medication there was no improvement in blood pressure control. Improvements achieved by specialist nurse-led clinics in secondary care may not translate to people with type 2 diabetes in primary care settings.

Objective To examine the impact on general practitioners' workload of adding nurse practitioners to the general practice team.

Design Randomised controlled trial with measurements before and after the introduction of nurse practitioners.

Setting 34 general practices in a southern region of the Netherlands.

Participants 48 general practitioners.

Intervention Five nurses were randomly allocated to general practitioners to undertake specific elements of care according to agreed guidelines. The control group received no nurse.

Main outcome measures Objective workload, derived from 28 day diaries, included the number of contacts per day for each of three conditions (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, dementia, cancer), by type of consultation (in practice, telephone, home visit), and by time of day (surgery hours, out of hours). Subjective workload was measured by using a validated questionnaire. Outcomes were measured six months before and 18 months after the intervention.

Results The number of contacts during surgery hours increased in the intervention group compared with the control group (P < 0.06), particularly for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma (P < 0.01). The number of consultations out of hours declined slightly in the intervention group compared with the control group, but this difference did not reach significance. No significant changes became apparent in subjective workload.

Conclusion Adding nurse practitioners to general practice teams did not reduce the workload of general practitioners, at least in the short term. This implies that nurse practitioners are used as supplements, rather than substitutes, for care given by general practitioners.

Background

Despite a well-recognised burden of disabling physical symptoms compounded by co-morbidities, psychological distress and social isolation, the needs of people with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are typically poorly addressed.

Aim

To assess the effectiveness of interventions designed to deliver holistic care for people with severe COPD.

Methods

We searched 11 biomedical databases, three trial repositories (January 1990-March 2012; no language restrictions) and contacted international experts to locate published, unpublished and in-progress randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that investigated holistic interventions to support patients with severe COPD in any healthcare context. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Quality assessment and data extraction followed Cochrane Collaboration methodology. We used a piloted data extraction sheet and undertook narrative synthesis.

Results

From 2,866 potentially relevant papers, we identified three trials: two RCTs (from United States and Australia), and one CCT (from Thailand): total 216 patients. Risk of bias was assessed as moderate in two studies and high in the third. All the interventions were led by nurses acting in a co-ordinating role (e.g. facilitating community support in Thailand, providing case-management in the USA, or co-ordinating inpatient care in Australia). HRQoL improved significantly in the Thai CCT compared to the (very limited) usual care (p<0.001), in two sub-domains in the American trial, but showed no significant changes in the Australian trial. Exercise tolerance, dyspnoea, and satisfaction with care also improved in the Thai trial.

Conclusions

Some 15 years after reports first highlighted the unmet needs of people with severe COPD, we have been unable to find robust trial evidence about interventions that can address those needs. There is an urgent need to develop and evaluate holistic care interventions designed improve HRQoL for people with severe COPD.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42012002430).

Objectives To develop and implement an educational outreach programme for the integrated case management of priority respiratory diseases (practical approach to lung health in South Africa; PALSA) and to evaluate its effects on respiratory care and detection of tuberculosis among adults attending primary care clinics.

Design Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, with clinics as the unit of randomisation.

Setting 40 primary care clinics, staffed by nurse practitioners, in the Free State province, South Africa.

Participants 1999 patients aged 15 or over with cough or difficult breathing (1000 in intervention clinics, 999 in control clinics).

Intervention Between two and six educational outreach sessions delivered to nurse practitioners by usual trainers from the health department. The emphasis was on key messages drawn from the customised clinical practice guideline for the outreach programme, with illustrative support materials.

Main outcome measures Sputum screening for tuberculosis, tuberculosis case detection, inhaled corticosteroid prescriptions for obstructive lung disease, and antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory tract infections.

Results All clinics and almost all patients (92.8%, 1856/1999) completed the trial. Although sputum testing for tuberculosis was similar between the groups (22.6% in outreach group v 19.3% in control group; odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.80), the case detection of tuberculosis was higher in the outreach group (6.4% v 3.8%; 1.72, 1.04 to 2.85). Prescriptions for inhaled corticosteroids were also higher (13.7% v 7.7%; 1.90, 1.14 to 3.18) but the number of antibiotic prescriptions was similar (39.7% v 39.4%; 1.01, 0.74 to 1.38).

Conclusions Combining educational outreach with integrated case management provides a promising model for improving quality of care and control of priority respiratory diseases, without extra staff, in resource poor settings.

Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN13438073.

Background

A major barrier to accessing free government-provided antiretroviral treatment (ART) in South Africa is the shortage of suitably skilled health professionals. Current South African guidelines recommend that only doctors should prescribe ART, even though most primary care is provided by nurses. We have developed an effective method of educational outreach to primary care nurses in South Africa. Evidence is needed as to whether primary care nurses, with suitable training and managerial support, can initiate and continue to prescribe and monitor ART in the majority of ART-eligible adults.

Methods/design

This is a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention based on and supporting nurse-led antiretroviral treatment (ART) for South African patients with HIV/AIDS, compared to current practice in which doctors are responsible for initiating ART and continuing prescribing. We will randomly allocate 31 primary care clinics in the Free State province to nurse-led or doctor-led ART. Two groups of patients aged 16 years and over will be included: a) 7400 registering with the programme with CD4 counts of ≤ 350 cells/mL (mainly to evaluate treatment initiation) and b) 4900 already receiving ART (to evaluate ongoing treatment and monitoring). The primary outcomes will be time to death (in the first group) and viral suppression (in the second group). Patients' survival, viral load and health status indicators will be measured at least 6-monthly for at least one year and up to 2 years, using an existing province-wide clinical database linked to the national death register.

Trial registration

Controlled Clinical Trials ISRCTN46836853

Background

Although care pathways are often said to promote teamwork, high-level evidence that supports this statement is lacking. Furthermore, knowledge on conditions and facilitators for successful pathway implementation is scarce. The objective of the European Quality of Care Pathway (EQCP) study is therefore to study the impact of care pathways on interprofessional teamwork and to build up understanding on the implementation process.

Methods/design

An international post-test-only cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (cRCT), combined with process evaluations, will be performed in Belgium, Ireland, Italy, and Portugal. Teams caring for proximal femur fracture (PFF) patients and patients hospitalized with an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) will be randomised into an intervention and control group. The intervention group will implement a care pathway for PFF or COPD containing three active components: a formative evaluation of the actual teams’ performance, a set of evidence-based key interventions, and a training in care pathway-development. The control group will provide usual care. A set of team input, process and output indicators will be used as effect measures. The main outcome indicator will be relational coordination. Next to these, process measures during and after pathway development will be used to evaluate the implementation processes. In total, 132 teams have agreed to participate, of which 68 were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 64 to the control group. Based on power analysis, a sample of 475 team members per arm is required. To analyze results, multilevel analysis will be performed.

Discussion

Results from our study will enhance understanding on the active components of care pathways. Through this, preferred implementation strategies can be defined.

Trail registration

NCT01435538

Objective To determine the effectiveness of innovations in management of chronic disease involving nurses for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources 24 electronic databases searched for English or Dutch language studies published between January 1980 and January 2005.

Review methods Included studies described inpatient, outpatient, and community based interventions for chronic disease management that were led, coordinated, or delivered by nurses. Hospital at home and early discharge schemes for acute exacerbations of COPD were excluded.

Results We identified nine relevant randomised controlled trials, most of which had some potential methodological flaws. All the interventions seemed to be variations on a case management model. The interventions described could be divided into brief (one month) and longer term (around a year) or more intensive interventions. Only two studies examined the effect of brief interventions, these found little evidence of any benefit. Meta-analysis of the long term interventions failed to detect any influence on mortality at 9-12 months' follow-up (Peto odds ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.26). There was evidence that the long term interventions had not improved patients' health related quality of life, psychological wellbeing, disability, or pulmonary function. The evidence on whether long term interventions reduced readmissions to hospital was equivocal, but the only study exclusively directed at patients on long term oxygen therapy reported a reduction in readmission. We identified several outcomes where little or no evidence was available; these included patients' satisfaction, self management skills, adherence with treatment recommendations, the likelihood of smoking cessation, and the effect of the interventions on carers.

Conclusion There is little evidence to date to support the widespread implementation of nurse led management interventions for COPD, but the data are too sparse to exclude any clinically relevant benefit or harm arising from such interventions.

Background

Most pulmonary rehabilitation programmes currently involve 2–3 sessions per week as recommended by international guidelines. We aimed to investigate whether relevant improvements in physical capabilities and quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) could be achieved by a long-term, low intensity, once weekly rehabilitation programme using limited resources.

Methods

100 patients with moderate to severe COPD were randomised to a continuous outpatient interdisciplinary rehabilitation programme or standard care. Physiotherapy-led supervised outpatient training sessions were performed once weekly in addition to educational elements. Outcome measures at baseline and after 26 weeks were 6-minute-walk-test, cycle ergometry, and health-related quality of life.

Results

37 patients in the training group and 44 patients in the control group completed the study. After 26 weeks there were clinically significant differences between the groups for 6 minute-walk-distance (+59 m, 95% CI 28–89 m), maximum work load (+7.4 Watt, 95% CI 0.5-13.4 Watt) and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score (−5 points, 95% CI −10 to −1 points). Total staff costs of the programme per participant were ≤ €625.

Conclusion

Clinically meaningful improvements in physical capabilities and health-related quality of life may be achieved using long-term pulmonary rehabilitation programmes of lower intensity than currently recommended. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01195402.

Introduction

We investigated the effects on collaborative work within the UK National Health Service (NHS) of an intervention for service quality improvement: informal, structured, reciprocated, multidisciplinary peer review with feedback and action plans. The setting was care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Theory and methods

We analysed semi-structured interviews with 43 hospital respiratory consultants, nurses and general managers at 24 intervention and 11 control sites, as part of a UK randomised controlled study, the National COPD Resources and Outcomes Project (NCROP), using Scott's conceptual framework for action (inter-organisational, intra-organisational, inter-professional and inter-individual). Three areas of care targeted by NCROP involved collaboration across primary and secondary care.

Results

Hospital respiratory department collaborations with commissioners and hospital managers varied. Analysis suggested that this is related to team responses to barriers. Clinicians in unsuccessful collaborations told ‘atrocity stories’ of organisational, structural and professional barriers to service improvement. The others removed barriers by working with government and commissioner agendas to ensure continued involvement in patients' care. Multidisciplinary peer review facilitated collaboration between participants, enabling them to meet, reconcile differences and exchange ideas across boundaries.

Conclusions

The data come from the first randomised controlled trial of organisational peer review, adding to research into UK health service collaborative work, which has had a more restricted focus on inter-professional relations. NCROP peer review may only modestly improve collaboration but these data suggest it might be more effective than top-down exhortations to change when collaboration both across and within organisations is required.

Background

Clinical trials of tiotropium have principally recruited patients from secondary care with more severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and typically had included limitation of concomitant medication. In primary care, which is the most common setting for COPD management, many patients may have milder disease, and also may take a broad range of concomitant medication.

Methods

This randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 12-week, 44-centre study investigated the efficacy (trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] response) and safety of additional treatment with once-daily tiotropium 18 μg via the HandiHaler® in a primary care COPD population (tiotropium: N = 191, FEV1 = 1.25 L [47.91% predicted]; placebo: N = 183, FEV1 = 1.32 L [49.86% predicted]). Secondary endpoints included: trough forced vital capacity (FVC) response, weekly use of rescue short-acting β-agonist, and exacerbation of COPD (complex of respiratory symptoms/events of >3 days in duration requiring a change in treatment). Treatment effects were determined using non-parametric analysis.

Results

At Week 12, median improvement in trough FEV1 response with tiotropium versus placebo was 0.06 L (p = 0.0102). The improvement was consistent across baseline treatment and COPD severity. Median improvement in FVC at 2, 6 and 12 weeks was 0.12 L (p < 0.001). The percentage of patients with ≥1 exacerbation was reduced (tiotropium 9.5%; placebo 17.9%; p = 0.0147), independent of disease severity. Rescue medication usage was significantly reduced in the tiotropium group compared with placebo. Adverse event profile was consistent with previous studies.

Conclusion

Tiotropium provides additional benefits to usual primary care management in a representative COPD population.

Trial registration

The identifier is: NCT00274079.

Background: The British Thoracic Society (BTS) guidelines have not been examined collectively for their impact on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Whether intensive outpatient follow up of COPD patients after acute admission, using these guidelines, improved quality of life compared to the "usual practice" of primary care follow up was investigated.

Methods: Altogether 103 patients with a new diagnosis of COPD were admitted and screened over a four year period. Seventy patients were excluded because of another dominant medical condition or a mandatory requirement for intervention. Patients were randomised to regular primary care (control group, n = 15) or chest clinic follow up (intervention group, n = 10). Spirometry, oxygen saturation, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and Short Form 36 questionnaire were measured at baseline and six months. The intervention group was reviewed at least four times in the six month period and received spirometry, ambulatory oxygen assessment, smoking cessation advice, nebuliser assessment, a steroid trial, advice about nutrition/exercise, and introduction to a patient support group.

Results: There was no significant difference between baseline measurements in the two groups. There was a significant mean (SD) improvement in the SGRQ symptom score from baseline to six months in the intervention group [20.98 (20.36)] compared with the controls [0.23 (12.55)] (p = 0.004). At six months the SGRQ symptom score, impact score, and total score was significantly better in the intervention than the control group (p = 0.01, 0.02, and 0.02).

Conclusion: Aggressive implementation of BTS guidelines after initial hospitalisation may improve respiratory health specific quality of life scores in patients with COPD. Larger studies are needed to confirm this finding.

Background

For residents of long term care, hospitalisations can cause distress and disruption, and often result in further medical complications. Multi-disciplinary team interventions have been shown to improve the health of Residential Aged Care (RAC) residents, decreasing the need for acute hospitalisation, yet there are few randomised controlled trials of these complex interventions. This paper describes a randomised controlled trial of a structured multi-disciplinary team and gerontology nurse specialist (GNS) intervention aiming to reduce residents’ avoidable hospitalisations.

Methods/Design

This Aged Residential Care Healthcare Utilisation Study (ARCHUS) is a cluster- randomised controlled trial (n = 1700 residents) of a complex multi-disciplinary team intervention in long-term care facilities. Eligible facilities certified for residential care were selected from those identified as at moderate or higher risk of resident potentially avoidable hospitalisations by statistical modelling. The facilities were all located in the Auckland region, New Zealand and were stratified by District Health Board (DHB).

Intervention

The intervention provided a structured GNS intervention including a baseline facility needs assessment, quality indicator benchmarking, a staff education programme and care coordination. Alongside this, three multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings were held involving a geriatrician, facility GP, pharmacist, GNS and senior nursing staff.

Outcomes

Hospitalisations are recorded from routinely-collected acute admissions during the 9-month intervention period followed by a 5-month follow-up period. ICD diagnosis codes are used in a pre-specified definition of potentially reducible admissions.

Discussion

This randomised-controlled trial will evaluate a complex intervention to increase early identification and intervention to improve the health of residents of long term care. The results of this trial are expected in early 2013.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12611000187943