Nurse-led self-management of COPD exacerbations reduces mortality and is cost effective

Respiratory Medicine: COPD Update Pub Date : 2008-05-01 Epub Date: 2008-03-05 DOI:10.1016/j.rmedu.2008.01.005
{"title":"Nurse-led self-management of COPD exacerbations reduces mortality and is cost effective","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.rmedu.2008.01.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A Nurse-Led intermediate care package in patients who have been hospitalised with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To determine the effects of a nurse-led intermediate care programme in the management of patients who have been hospitalised with an acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD).</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Randomised controlled trial.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Care in the community and a teaching hospital in West London.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>One hundred and twenty-two patients who had been admitted to Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust with a diagnosis of AECOPD.</p></div><div><h3>Intervention</h3><p>A care package incorporating initial pulmonary rehabilitation and self-management education followed by the provision of a written, personalised COPD action plan, monthly telephone calls and three monthly home visits by a specialist nurse for a period of two years.</p></div><div><h3>Main outcome measure</h3><p>Hospital readmission rate.</p></div><div><h3>Secondary outcomes</h3><p>Unscheduled consultations with general practitioners and disease-specific health-related quality of life.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were no differences in hospital admission rates or in exacerbation rates between the intervention and control groups. Self-management of exacerbations was, however, significantly different and patients in the intervention group were more likely to have exacerbations treated with oral steroids alone or oral steroids and antibiotics than the control group, and the initiator of treatment for exacerbations was statistically more likely to be the patient themselves in the intervention group. Twelve patients in the control group died during the two-year period, eight as a result of COPD, compared with six patients dying in the intervention group, of which one died from COPD. This is a significant difference. When the numbers in the intervention and control groups are adjusted to reflect the numbers still alive, at two years, 55 of the 61 patients of the intervention group were still alive and these patients had had a total of 171 unscheduled contacts with their GP. In the control group, 49 of the 61 patients were still alive and they had 280 contacts with their GP. The number needed to treat equals 0.558. That is to say, for every one COPD patient receiving the intervention and self-management advice, there was 1.79 less unscheduled contacts with the GP. There were no important differences in quality of life.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>An intermediate care package incorporating pulmonary rehabilitation, self-management education and the receipt of a written COPD action plan, together with regular nurse contact, is associated with a reduced need for unscheduled primary care consultations and a reduction in deaths due to COPD but did not affect the hospital readmission rate.<br></p><p>Reproduced with permission from the BMJ Publishing Group.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101083,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory Medicine: COPD Update","volume":"4 2","pages":"Pages 85-86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rmedu.2008.01.005","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory Medicine: COPD Update","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1745045408000075","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2008/3/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A Nurse-Led intermediate care package in patients who have been hospitalised with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Objectives

To determine the effects of a nurse-led intermediate care programme in the management of patients who have been hospitalised with an acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD).

Design

Randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Care in the community and a teaching hospital in West London.

Participants

One hundred and twenty-two patients who had been admitted to Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust with a diagnosis of AECOPD.

Intervention

A care package incorporating initial pulmonary rehabilitation and self-management education followed by the provision of a written, personalised COPD action plan, monthly telephone calls and three monthly home visits by a specialist nurse for a period of two years.

Main outcome measure

Hospital readmission rate.

Secondary outcomes

Unscheduled consultations with general practitioners and disease-specific health-related quality of life.

Results

There were no differences in hospital admission rates or in exacerbation rates between the intervention and control groups. Self-management of exacerbations was, however, significantly different and patients in the intervention group were more likely to have exacerbations treated with oral steroids alone or oral steroids and antibiotics than the control group, and the initiator of treatment for exacerbations was statistically more likely to be the patient themselves in the intervention group. Twelve patients in the control group died during the two-year period, eight as a result of COPD, compared with six patients dying in the intervention group, of which one died from COPD. This is a significant difference. When the numbers in the intervention and control groups are adjusted to reflect the numbers still alive, at two years, 55 of the 61 patients of the intervention group were still alive and these patients had had a total of 171 unscheduled contacts with their GP. In the control group, 49 of the 61 patients were still alive and they had 280 contacts with their GP. The number needed to treat equals 0.558. That is to say, for every one COPD patient receiving the intervention and self-management advice, there was 1.79 less unscheduled contacts with the GP. There were no important differences in quality of life.

Conclusions

An intermediate care package incorporating pulmonary rehabilitation, self-management education and the receipt of a written COPD action plan, together with regular nurse contact, is associated with a reduced need for unscheduled primary care consultations and a reduction in deaths due to COPD but did not affect the hospital readmission rate.

Reproduced with permission from the BMJ Publishing Group.

护士主导的慢性阻塞性肺病恶化自我管理可降低死亡率,并具有成本效益
一个护士主导的中间护理包病人谁已经住院与慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重。目的:探讨护士主导的中间护理方案在慢性阻塞性肺病急性加重(AECOPD)住院患者管理中的作用。随机对照试验。在伦敦西部的社区和教学医院设立护理中心。参与者:122名被诊断为AECOPD的患者被哈默史密斯医院NHS信托收治。干预包括最初的肺部康复和自我管理教育,随后提供书面的、个性化的慢性阻塞性肺病行动计划,由专科护士每月打电话和每月三次家访,为期两年。主要观察指标:再入院率。次要结果:不定期咨询全科医生和特定疾病的健康相关生活质量。结果干预组与对照组在住院率和急性加重率方面无差异。然而,病情恶化的自我管理存在显著差异,干预组患者与对照组相比,更有可能单独使用口服类固醇或口服类固醇加抗生素治疗病情恶化,并且在统计学上,干预组患者本身更有可能是病情恶化治疗的发起者。在两年的研究期间,对照组有12名患者死亡,其中8名死于慢性阻塞性肺病,而干预组有6名患者死亡,其中1名死于慢性阻塞性肺病。这是一个显著的区别。当调整干预组和对照组的人数以反映仍然活着的人数时,两年后,干预组的61名患者中有55名仍然活着,这些患者总共与他们的全科医生进行了171次计划外接触。在对照组中,61名患者中有49人仍然活着,他们与全科医生有280次接触。需要处理的数字等于0.558。也就是说,对于每一个接受干预和自我管理建议的COPD患者,与全科医生的计划外接触减少了1.79次。在生活质量上没有显著差异。结论:一个包含肺康复、自我管理教育和接受书面COPD行动计划的中间护理方案,以及定期与护士联系,与减少计划外初级保健咨询的需求和减少因COPD导致的死亡有关,但不影响医院再入院率。经英国医学杂志出版集团许可转载。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书