Metered-Dose Inhaler Versus Nebulizer Treatment for Acute Asthma Exacerbation: A Process Evaluation.

IF 0.2 Q4 NURSING
Christopher Graybill, Colleen Paramesh, Jason Gray, Kelly Bosak
{"title":"Metered-Dose Inhaler Versus Nebulizer Treatment for Acute Asthma Exacerbation: A Process Evaluation.","authors":"Christopher Graybill, Colleen Paramesh, Jason Gray, Kelly Bosak","doi":"10.1891/JDNP-2023-0059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The prevalence of childhood asthma in the United States is 6.5%. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) implemented metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) with spacers instead of nebulized albuterol to reduce aerosolization of pathogens and reduce costs. <b>Objective:</b> The objective of the study is to assess the safety, efficacy, and efficiency of a change to the asthma exacerbation protocol at an urban FQHC. <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective chart review compared nebulized albuterol versus an MDI with a spacer in pediatric patients experiencing asthma exacerbation. The evaluation aimed to measure (a) the 30-day return to care in either the emergency department (ED) or clinic, (b) the total number of treatments administered, and (c) the documented use of an oral steroid with albuterol treatments. <b>Results:</b> Return to clinic was the only statistically significant variable. Zero MDI patients returned, whereas 61% of those nebulized returned within 30 days (<i>p</i> < .00001). <b>Conclusions:</b> Albuterol MDI with a spacer was more effective than a nebulizer in reducing follow-up visits to the clinic and was effective at reducing ED visits within 30 days. <b>Implications for Nursing:</b> Treating asthma exacerbations in the primary care clinic with an MDI is effective and reduces cost and airborne exposure.</p>","PeriodicalId":40310,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Doctoral Nursing Practice","volume":"17 3","pages":"157-162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Doctoral Nursing Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1891/JDNP-2023-0059","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The prevalence of childhood asthma in the United States is 6.5%. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) implemented metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) with spacers instead of nebulized albuterol to reduce aerosolization of pathogens and reduce costs. Objective: The objective of the study is to assess the safety, efficacy, and efficiency of a change to the asthma exacerbation protocol at an urban FQHC. Methods: A retrospective chart review compared nebulized albuterol versus an MDI with a spacer in pediatric patients experiencing asthma exacerbation. The evaluation aimed to measure (a) the 30-day return to care in either the emergency department (ED) or clinic, (b) the total number of treatments administered, and (c) the documented use of an oral steroid with albuterol treatments. Results: Return to clinic was the only statistically significant variable. Zero MDI patients returned, whereas 61% of those nebulized returned within 30 days (p < .00001). Conclusions: Albuterol MDI with a spacer was more effective than a nebulizer in reducing follow-up visits to the clinic and was effective at reducing ED visits within 30 days. Implications for Nursing: Treating asthma exacerbations in the primary care clinic with an MDI is effective and reduces cost and airborne exposure.

计量吸入器与雾化器治疗急性哮喘加重:过程评估。
背景:美国儿童哮喘发病率为 6.5%。在 COVID-19 大流行期间,一家联邦合格医疗中心 (FQHC) 使用了带间隔器的计量吸入器 (MDI),取代了雾化吸入的阿布特罗,以减少病原体的雾化并降低成本。研究目的本研究旨在评估一家城市 FQHC 对哮喘恶化治疗方案所做改变的安全性、有效性和效率。研究方法:通过回顾性病历审查,对哮喘加重的儿科患者使用雾化吸入阿布特罗与使用带吸入器的计量吸入器进行比较。评估的目的是测量:(a) 30 天内急诊科(ED)或诊所的复诊情况;(b) 治疗总次数;(c) 记录的使用口服类固醇和阿布特罗治疗的情况。结果显示返回诊所是唯一具有统计学意义的变量。无 MDI 患者返回,而 61% 的雾化患者在 30 天内返回(P < .00001)。结论:在减少复诊次数方面,使用带间隔器的阿布特罗 MDI 比使用雾化器更有效,在减少 30 天内急诊就诊次数方面也更有效。对护理工作的启示:在初级保健诊所使用计量吸入器治疗哮喘加重是有效的,可降低成本并减少空气传播。
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信