减少慢性阻塞性肺病患者出院时滥用吸入器比例的院内干预:一项非随机干预研究。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
G. Grandmaison, Thomas Grobéty, Philippe Dumont, Julien Vaucher, Daniel Hayoz, Philipp Suter
{"title":"减少慢性阻塞性肺病患者出院时滥用吸入器比例的院内干预:一项非随机干预研究。","authors":"G. Grandmaison, Thomas Grobéty, Philippe Dumont, Julien Vaucher, Daniel Hayoz, Philipp Suter","doi":"10.57187/s.3394","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AIMS OF THE STUDY\nMisuse of inhalers during chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment is common and may result from errors in inhalation technique or insufficient peak inspiratory flow (PIF). We aimed to evaluate the impact of an in-hospital intervention to reduce inhaler misuse at hospital discharge among patients with COPD.\n\n\nMETHODS\nWe conducted a monocentric, non-randomised intervention study to compare the proportion of misused inhalers at hospital discharge by patients with COPD between a group with standard care and a group receiving an in-hospital intervention. The control group successively included all patients hospitalised between March and June 2022, and the intervention group included patients hospitalised between August and December 2022. The intervention consisted of (a) an evaluation of inhalation technique and PIF at admission, (b) the provision of a written guide to assist in the selection of an inhaler, and (c) therapeutic education. The primary outcome was the proportion of misused inhalers, defined as an inhaler used with a critical error and/or insufficient PIF, at hospital discharge. The primary outcome was assessed by observing inhalation technique and measuring PIF using the In-Check DIAL G16® .\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe study included 93 patients: 46 in the control group and 47 in the intervention group. Mean age was 70.5 years (SD 10.9 years), 56 patients (60.2%) were men, and 57 patients (62%) were hospitalised for a COPD exacerbation. Patients used an average of 1.9 inhalers at hospital discharge; 98 inhalers were assessed in the control group and 81 in the intervention group. The proportion of misused inhalers at discharge was 61.2% in the control group and 21.0% in the intervention group (absolute risk reduction 40.2% [95% CI 25.5-55.0]; p <0.01). In the intervention group, the proportion of inhalers used with at least one critical error was reduced by 38.6% (95% CI 24.3-52.3%) and that of inhalers used with insufficient PIF by 13.9% (95% CI 4.2-23.6%).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nAn in-hospital intervention was associated with a reduction in the proportion of misused inhalers at hospital discharge. This intervention should be considered for hospitalised patients with COPD. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05207631).","PeriodicalId":22111,"journal":{"name":"Swiss medical weekly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An in-hospital intervention to reduce the proportion of misused inhalers at hospital discharge among patients with COPD: a non-randomised intervention study.\",\"authors\":\"G. Grandmaison, Thomas Grobéty, Philippe Dumont, Julien Vaucher, Daniel Hayoz, Philipp Suter\",\"doi\":\"10.57187/s.3394\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AIMS OF THE STUDY\\nMisuse of inhalers during chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment is common and may result from errors in inhalation technique or insufficient peak inspiratory flow (PIF). We aimed to evaluate the impact of an in-hospital intervention to reduce inhaler misuse at hospital discharge among patients with COPD.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nWe conducted a monocentric, non-randomised intervention study to compare the proportion of misused inhalers at hospital discharge by patients with COPD between a group with standard care and a group receiving an in-hospital intervention. The control group successively included all patients hospitalised between March and June 2022, and the intervention group included patients hospitalised between August and December 2022. The intervention consisted of (a) an evaluation of inhalation technique and PIF at admission, (b) the provision of a written guide to assist in the selection of an inhaler, and (c) therapeutic education. The primary outcome was the proportion of misused inhalers, defined as an inhaler used with a critical error and/or insufficient PIF, at hospital discharge. The primary outcome was assessed by observing inhalation technique and measuring PIF using the In-Check DIAL G16® .\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nThe study included 93 patients: 46 in the control group and 47 in the intervention group. Mean age was 70.5 years (SD 10.9 years), 56 patients (60.2%) were men, and 57 patients (62%) were hospitalised for a COPD exacerbation. Patients used an average of 1.9 inhalers at hospital discharge; 98 inhalers were assessed in the control group and 81 in the intervention group. The proportion of misused inhalers at discharge was 61.2% in the control group and 21.0% in the intervention group (absolute risk reduction 40.2% [95% CI 25.5-55.0]; p <0.01). In the intervention group, the proportion of inhalers used with at least one critical error was reduced by 38.6% (95% CI 24.3-52.3%) and that of inhalers used with insufficient PIF by 13.9% (95% CI 4.2-23.6%).\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nAn in-hospital intervention was associated with a reduction in the proportion of misused inhalers at hospital discharge. This intervention should be considered for hospitalised patients with COPD. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05207631).\",\"PeriodicalId\":22111,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Swiss medical weekly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Swiss medical weekly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.57187/s.3394\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Swiss medical weekly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57187/s.3394","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的 在慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)治疗过程中滥用吸入器很常见,可能是由于吸入技术错误或吸入峰值流量(PIF)不足造成的。我们旨在评估院内干预对减少慢性阻塞性肺病患者出院时滥用吸入器的影响。方法 我们进行了一项单中心、非随机干预研究,比较了接受标准护理组和接受院内干预组的慢性阻塞性肺病患者出院时滥用吸入器的比例。对照组先后包括2022年3月至6月期间住院的所有患者,干预组包括2022年8月至12月期间住院的患者。干预措施包括:(a) 入院时对吸入技术和 PIF 进行评估;(b) 提供书面指南以协助选择吸入器;(c) 治疗教育。主要结果是出院时滥用吸入器的比例,滥用吸入器的定义是在使用吸入器时出现严重错误和/或PIF不足。主要结果通过观察吸入技术和使用 In-Check DIAL G16® 测量 PIF 进行评估:对照组 46 人,干预组 47 人。平均年龄为 70.5 岁(标清 10.9 岁),56 名患者(60.2%)为男性,57 名患者(62%)因慢性阻塞性肺疾病恶化住院。患者出院时平均使用 1.9 个吸入器;对照组评估了 98 个吸入器,干预组评估了 81 个。对照组出院时滥用吸入器的比例为 61.2%,干预组为 21.0%(绝对风险降低 40.2% [95% CI 25.5-55.0];P <0.01)。在干预组中,至少出现一次严重错误的吸入器使用比例降低了 38.6% (95% CI 24.3-52.3%),PIF 不足的吸入器使用比例降低了 13.9% (95% CI 4.2-23.6%)。慢性阻塞性肺病住院患者应考虑采取这种干预措施。该试验已在ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT05207631)上注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An in-hospital intervention to reduce the proportion of misused inhalers at hospital discharge among patients with COPD: a non-randomised intervention study.
AIMS OF THE STUDY Misuse of inhalers during chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment is common and may result from errors in inhalation technique or insufficient peak inspiratory flow (PIF). We aimed to evaluate the impact of an in-hospital intervention to reduce inhaler misuse at hospital discharge among patients with COPD. METHODS We conducted a monocentric, non-randomised intervention study to compare the proportion of misused inhalers at hospital discharge by patients with COPD between a group with standard care and a group receiving an in-hospital intervention. The control group successively included all patients hospitalised between March and June 2022, and the intervention group included patients hospitalised between August and December 2022. The intervention consisted of (a) an evaluation of inhalation technique and PIF at admission, (b) the provision of a written guide to assist in the selection of an inhaler, and (c) therapeutic education. The primary outcome was the proportion of misused inhalers, defined as an inhaler used with a critical error and/or insufficient PIF, at hospital discharge. The primary outcome was assessed by observing inhalation technique and measuring PIF using the In-Check DIAL G16® . RESULTS The study included 93 patients: 46 in the control group and 47 in the intervention group. Mean age was 70.5 years (SD 10.9 years), 56 patients (60.2%) were men, and 57 patients (62%) were hospitalised for a COPD exacerbation. Patients used an average of 1.9 inhalers at hospital discharge; 98 inhalers were assessed in the control group and 81 in the intervention group. The proportion of misused inhalers at discharge was 61.2% in the control group and 21.0% in the intervention group (absolute risk reduction 40.2% [95% CI 25.5-55.0]; p <0.01). In the intervention group, the proportion of inhalers used with at least one critical error was reduced by 38.6% (95% CI 24.3-52.3%) and that of inhalers used with insufficient PIF by 13.9% (95% CI 4.2-23.6%). CONCLUSIONS An in-hospital intervention was associated with a reduction in the proportion of misused inhalers at hospital discharge. This intervention should be considered for hospitalised patients with COPD. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05207631).
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
Swiss medical weekly
Swiss medical weekly 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Swiss Medical Weekly accepts for consideration original and review articles from all fields of medicine. The quality of SMW publications is guaranteed by a consistent policy of rigorous single-blind peer review. All editorial decisions are made by research-active academics.
×
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