有COPD风险的初级保健患者的肺活量测定

{"title":"有COPD风险的初级保健患者的肺活量测定","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.rmedu.2008.06.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>To increase recognition of airflow obstruction in primary care, we compared two models of spirometry delivery in a target group at risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A 6-month qualitative/quantitative cluster randomized study in eight practices compared opportunistic spirometry by “visiting trained nurses” (TN) with optimized “usual care” (UC) from general practitioners (GPs) for smokers and ex-smokers, aged over 35 years. Outcomes were: spirometry uptake and quality, new diagnoses of COPD and GPs’ experiences of spirometry.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In the eligible target population, 531/904 (59%) patients underwent spirometry in the TN model and 87/1130 (8%) patients in the UC model (<em>p</em>&lt;0.0001). ATS spirometry standards for acceptability and reproducibility were met by 76% and 44% of tests in the TN and UC models, respectively (<em>p</em>&lt;0.0001). One hundred and twenty-five (24%) patients tested with the TN model and 38 (44%) with the UC model reported a pre-existing respiratory diagnosis (<em>p</em>&lt;0.0001). Three months after spirometry, when the ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1<!--> <!-->s/forced vital capacity (FEV(1)/FVC) was &lt;0.7 and no prior COPD diagnosis was reported, nine (8%) participants had a new doctor recorded COPD diagnosis in practices with the TN model and two (8%) participants in practices with the UC model. Mislabeling of participants with a diagnosis of COPD when FEV(1)/FVC was &gt; or =0.7 was present in both models prior to and after spirometry. GPs valued high-quality spirometry and increased testing of patients at risk of COPD in the TN model. They identified limitations, including the need for better systematic follow-up of abnormal spirometry and support with interpretation, which may explain persisting underdiagnosis of COPD in practice records.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Although opportunistic testing by visiting trained nurses substantially increased and improved spirometry performance compared with usual care, translating increased detection of airflow obstruction into diagnosis of COPD requires further development of the model. Trial registration number: Australian Clinical Trials Registry: registration no. 12605000019606.</p><p>Reproduced with permission from the BMJ Publishing Group.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101083,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory Medicine: COPD Update","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rmedu.2008.06.016","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Spirometry delivery for primary care patients at risk of COPD\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rmedu.2008.06.016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>To increase recognition of airflow obstruction in primary care, we compared two models of spirometry delivery in a target group at risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A 6-month qualitative/quantitative cluster randomized study in eight practices compared opportunistic spirometry by “visiting trained nurses” (TN) with optimized “usual care” (UC) from general practitioners (GPs) for smokers and ex-smokers, aged over 35 years. Outcomes were: spirometry uptake and quality, new diagnoses of COPD and GPs’ experiences of spirometry.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In the eligible target population, 531/904 (59%) patients underwent spirometry in the TN model and 87/1130 (8%) patients in the UC model (<em>p</em>&lt;0.0001). ATS spirometry standards for acceptability and reproducibility were met by 76% and 44% of tests in the TN and UC models, respectively (<em>p</em>&lt;0.0001). One hundred and twenty-five (24%) patients tested with the TN model and 38 (44%) with the UC model reported a pre-existing respiratory diagnosis (<em>p</em>&lt;0.0001). Three months after spirometry, when the ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1<!--> <!-->s/forced vital capacity (FEV(1)/FVC) was &lt;0.7 and no prior COPD diagnosis was reported, nine (8%) participants had a new doctor recorded COPD diagnosis in practices with the TN model and two (8%) participants in practices with the UC model. Mislabeling of participants with a diagnosis of COPD when FEV(1)/FVC was &gt; or =0.7 was present in both models prior to and after spirometry. GPs valued high-quality spirometry and increased testing of patients at risk of COPD in the TN model. They identified limitations, including the need for better systematic follow-up of abnormal spirometry and support with interpretation, which may explain persisting underdiagnosis of COPD in practice records.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Although opportunistic testing by visiting trained nurses substantially increased and improved spirometry performance compared with usual care, translating increased detection of airflow obstruction into diagnosis of COPD requires further development of the model. Trial registration number: Australian Clinical Trials Registry: registration no. 12605000019606.</p><p>Reproduced with permission from the BMJ Publishing Group.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101083,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Respiratory Medicine: COPD Update\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rmedu.2008.06.016\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Respiratory Medicine: COPD Update\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1745045408000488\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory Medicine: COPD Update","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1745045408000488","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:为了提高初级保健对气流阻塞的认识,我们比较了两种肺活量测定法在慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)危险目标人群中的应用。方法通过一项为期6个月的定性/定量整群随机研究,对年龄在35岁以上的吸烟者和戒烟者,由“来访培训护士”(TN)进行机会性肺量测量与全科医生(gp)进行优化的“常规护理”(UC)进行比较。结果:肺活量测定法的吸收和质量,COPD的新诊断和全科医生的肺活量测定经验。结果在符合条件的目标人群中,TN模型中有531/904例(59%)患者接受了肺活量测定,UC模型中有87/1130例(8%)患者接受了肺活量测定(p<0.0001)。在TN和UC模型中,分别有76%和44%的试验符合ATS肺活量测定的可接受性和可重复性标准(p<0.0001)。125名(24%)接受TN模型测试的患者和38名(44%)接受UC模型测试的患者报告了先前存在的呼吸道诊断(p<0.0001)。在肺活量测定3个月后,当用力呼气量(1秒)/用力肺活量(FEV(1)/FVC)的比值为0.7且未报告既往COPD诊断时,使用TN模型的9名(8%)参与者有新医生记录的COPD诊断,使用UC模型的2名(8%)参与者有新医生记录的COPD诊断。当FEV(1)/FVC为>时,被诊断为COPD的参与者的标签错误;Or =0.7存在于肺量测定前后的两个模型中。全科医生重视高质量的肺活量测定,并在TN模型中增加对COPD风险患者的检测。他们发现了局限性,包括需要对异常肺活量进行更好的系统随访和支持解释,这可能解释了实践记录中持续存在的COPD诊断不足。结论:虽然与常规护理相比,由来访的训练有素的护士进行的机会性测试大大提高和改善了肺活量测定的性能,但将增加的气流阻塞检测转化为COPD的诊断需要进一步开发模型。试验注册号:Australian Clinical Trials Registry:注册号:12605000019606.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。
Spirometry delivery for primary care patients at risk of COPD

Background

To increase recognition of airflow obstruction in primary care, we compared two models of spirometry delivery in a target group at risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

A 6-month qualitative/quantitative cluster randomized study in eight practices compared opportunistic spirometry by “visiting trained nurses” (TN) with optimized “usual care” (UC) from general practitioners (GPs) for smokers and ex-smokers, aged over 35 years. Outcomes were: spirometry uptake and quality, new diagnoses of COPD and GPs’ experiences of spirometry.

Results

In the eligible target population, 531/904 (59%) patients underwent spirometry in the TN model and 87/1130 (8%) patients in the UC model (p<0.0001). ATS spirometry standards for acceptability and reproducibility were met by 76% and 44% of tests in the TN and UC models, respectively (p<0.0001). One hundred and twenty-five (24%) patients tested with the TN model and 38 (44%) with the UC model reported a pre-existing respiratory diagnosis (p<0.0001). Three months after spirometry, when the ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity (FEV(1)/FVC) was <0.7 and no prior COPD diagnosis was reported, nine (8%) participants had a new doctor recorded COPD diagnosis in practices with the TN model and two (8%) participants in practices with the UC model. Mislabeling of participants with a diagnosis of COPD when FEV(1)/FVC was > or =0.7 was present in both models prior to and after spirometry. GPs valued high-quality spirometry and increased testing of patients at risk of COPD in the TN model. They identified limitations, including the need for better systematic follow-up of abnormal spirometry and support with interpretation, which may explain persisting underdiagnosis of COPD in practice records.

Conclusions

Although opportunistic testing by visiting trained nurses substantially increased and improved spirometry performance compared with usual care, translating increased detection of airflow obstruction into diagnosis of COPD requires further development of the model. Trial registration number: Australian Clinical Trials Registry: registration no. 12605000019606.

Reproduced with permission from the BMJ Publishing Group.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信