Integrated care for asthma: a clinical,social, and economic evaluation. Grampian Asthma Study of Integrated Care (GRASSIC)

OBJECTIVES--To evaluate integrated care for asthma in clinical, social, and economic terms. DESIGN--Pragmatic randomised trial. SETTING--Hospital outpatient clinics and general practices throughout the north east of Scotland. PATIENTS--712 adults attending hospital outpatient clinics with a diagnosis of asthma confirmed by a chest physician and pulmonary function reversibility of at least 20%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Use of bronchodilators and inhaled and oral steroids; number of general practice consultations and hospital admissions for asthma; sleep disturbance and other restrictions on normal activity; psychological aspects of health including perceived asthma control; patient satisfaction; and financial costs. RESULTS--After one year there were no significant overall differences between those patients receiving integrated asthma care and those receiving conventional outpatient care for any clinical or psychosocial outcome. For pulmonary function, forced expiratory volume was 76% of predicted for integrated care patients and 75% for conventional outpatients (95% confidence interval for difference -3.6% to 5.0%). Patients who had experienced integrated care were more likely to select it as their preferred course of future management (75% (251/333) v 62% (207/333) (6% to 20%)); they saved 39.52 pounds a year. This was largely because patients in conventional outpatient care consulted their general practitioner as many times as those in integrated care, who were not also visiting hospital. CONCLUSION--Integrated care for moderately severe asthma patients is clinically as effective as conventional outpatient care, cost effective, and an attractive management option for patients, general practitioners, and hospital consultants.     

Effectiveness of routine self monitoring of peak flow in patients with asthma. Grampian Asthma Study of Integrated Care (GRASSIC).

OBJECTIVE--To evaluate the effectiveness of routine self monitoring of peak flow for asthma outpatients. DESIGN--Pragmatic randomised trial. SETTING--Hospital outpatient clinics and general practices in north east Scotland. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Use of bronchodilators and inhaled and oral steroids; number of general practice consultations and hospital admissions for asthma; sleep disturbance and other restrictions on normal activity; psychological aspects of health including perceived control of asthma. RESULTS--After one year there were no significant differences between patients randomised between self monitoring of peak flow and conventional monitoring. However, those given a peak flow meter recorded an increase in general practice consultations that was nearly significant. Among patients whose asthma was judged on entry to be more severe, those allocated to self monitoring used more than twice as many oral steroids (2.2; 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 4.6). Patients who already possessed a peak flow meter at the start of the study recorded higher morbidity over the course of the year than those eligible for randomisation. CONCLUSION--Prescribing peak flow meters and giving self management guidelines to all asthma patients is unlikely to improve mortality or morbidity. Patients whose asthma is severe may benefit from such an intervention.     

Contribution of a general practitioner hospital: a further study.

OBJECTIVE--To audit the workload of a general practitioner hospital and to compare the results with an earlier study. DESIGN--Prospective recording of discharges from the general practitioner hospital plus outpatient and casualty attendances and of all outpatient referrals and discharges from other hospitals of patients from Brecon Medical Group Practice during one year (1 June 1986-31 May 1987). SETTING--A large rural general group practice which staffs a general practitioner hospital in Brecon, mid-Wales. PATIENTS--20,000 Patients living in the Brecon area. RESULTS--1540 Patients were discharged from the general practitioner hospital during the study period. The hospital accounted for 78% (1242 out of 1594) of all hospital admissions of patients of the practice. There were 5835 new attendances at the casualty department and 1896 new outpatient attendances at consultant clinics at the hospital. Of all new outpatient attendances by patients of the practice, 71% (1358 out of 1896) were at clinics held at the general practitioner hospital. Since the previous study in 1971 discharges from the hospital have increased 37% (from 1125 to 1540) and new attendances at consultant clinics 30% (from 1450 to 1896). The average cost per inpatient day is lower at this hospital than at the local district general hospital (pounds 71.07 v pounds 88.06 respectively). CONCLUSIONS--The general practitioner hospital deals with a considerably larger proportion of admissions and outpatient attendances of patients in the practice than in 1971 and eases the burden on the local district general hospital at a reasonable cost. IMPLICATIONS--General practitioner hospitals should have a future role in the NHS.     

Theophylline in the management of airflow obstruction. 2. Difficult drugs to use,few clinical indications.

The narrow therapeutic index, potential toxicity, and need to monitor plasma concentrations make theophyllines difficult to use. Other drugs provide comparable or better bronchodilator and prophylactic efficacy. In asthma theophyllines should be considered for chronic stable asthma when treatment with optimal doses of inhaled steroids and bronchodilators fails to provide adequate control; for nocturnal asthma; and for prophylaxis and relief of symptoms in children and adults when inhaled treatment cannot be given. In general, theophyllines cannot be recommended for chronic airflow obstruction. A trial of theophylline is reasonable in individual patients whose symptoms remain troublesome despite a trial of steroids and optimal doses of inhaled bronchodilators.     

Alternatives to hospital care: what are they and who should decide?

OBJECTIVE--To examine potential for alternatives to care in hospitals for acute admissions, and to compare the decisions about these alternatives made by clinicians with different backgrounds. DESIGN--Standardised tool was used to identify patients who could potentially be treated in an alternative form of care. Information about such patients was assessed by three panels of clinicians: general practitioners without experience of general practitioner beds, general practitioners with experience of general practitioner beds, and consultants. SETTING--One hospital for acute admissions in a rural area of the South and West region of England. SUBJECTS--Of 620 patients admitted to specialties of general medicine and care of the elderly, details of 112 were assessed by panels. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Proportion of hospitalised patients who could have received alternative care and identification of most appropriate alternative form of care. RESULTS--Both general practitioner panels estimated that between 51 and 89 of the hospitalised patients could have received alternative care (equivalent to 8-14% of all admissions). Consultants estimated that between 25 and 55 patients could have had alternative care (5.5-9% of all admissions). General practitioner bed and urgent outpatient appointment were the main alternatives chosen by all three panels. CONCLUSION--About 10% of admissions to general hospital might be suitable for alternative forms of care. Doctors with different backgrounds made similar overall assessments of most appropriate forms of care.     

Evaluation of peak flow and symptoms only self management plans for control of asthma in general practice.

OBJECTIVE--To compare a peak flow self management plan for asthma with a symptoms only plan. DESIGN--Randomisation to one of the self management plans and follow up for a year. SETTING--Four partner, rural training practice in Norfolk. SUBJECTS--115 Patients (46 children and 69 adults) with asthma who were having prophylactic treatment for asthma and attending a nurse run asthma clinic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--The number of doctor consultations, courses of oral steroids, and short term nebulised salbutamol treatments and the number of patients who required doctor consultations, courses of oral steroids, and short term nebulised salbutamol. RESULTS--Both self management plans produced significant reductions in the outcome measures but there were no significant differences in the degree of improvement between the groups. The results were similar for children and adults. The proportions of patients requiring a doctor consultation fell from 98% (50/51) to 66% (34/51) in the peak flow group and from 97% (62/64) to 53% (34/64) in the symptoms only group and the proportions requiring oral steroids from 73% (34/46) to 47% (21/46) and 52% (31/60) to 12% (7/60). The median number of doctor consultations was reduced from 8.0 to 2.0 in the peak flow group and from 4.5 to 1.0 in the symptoms only group. CONCLUSIONS--The peak flow meter was not the crucial ingredient in the improved illness of the two groups. Teaching patients the importance of their symptoms and the appropriate action to take when their asthma deteriorates is the key to effective management of asthma. Simply prescribing peak flow meters without a system of self management and regular review will be unlikely to improve patient care.     

Can telemedicine be used to improve communication between primary and secondary care?

OBJECTIVE: To test feasibility and acceptability of teleconferencing routine outpatient consultations. DESIGN: Exploratory trial of teleconferenced outpatient referrals of general practitioners. SETTING: An inner city teaching hospital and surrounding general practices. SUBJECTS: Six general practices linked to hospital outpatient clinics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels of participants'' satisfaction measured with self administered questionnaires. RESULTS: 54 teleconsultations were performed in 10 different specialties. Few serious technical problems were encountered, and high levels of satisfaction with the consultations were reported by patients, hospital specialists, and general practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: Teleconferenced consultations for routine outpatient referrals with joint participation of general practitioner were feasible. These may have an important potential benefit for improving communication between primary and secondary care.     

Randomised comparison of guided self management and traditional treatment of asthma over one year.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of self management of asthma with traditional treatment. DESIGN: 12 month prospective randomised trial. SETTING: Outpatient clinics in Finland. SUBJECTS: 115 patients with mild to moderately severe asthma. INTERVENTIONS: Patient education and adjustment of anti-inflammatory therapy guided by peak flow measurements. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Unscheduled admissions to hospital and outpatient visits, days off work, courses of antibiotics and prednisolone, lung function, and quality of life. RESULTS: The mean number of unscheduled visits to ambulatory care facilities (0.5 v 1.0), days off work (2.8 v 4.8), and courses of antibiotics (0.4 v 0.9) and prednisolone (0.4 v 1.0) per patient were lower and the quality of life score (16.6 v 8.4 at 12 months) higher in the self management group than in the traditionally treated group. In both groups admissions for asthma were rare. CONCLUSIONS: Self management reduces incidents caused by asthma and improves quality of life.     

Influences on hospital admission for asthma in south Asian and white adults: qualitative interview study

ObjectiveTo explore reasons for increased risk of hospital admission among south Asian patients with asthma.DesignQualitative interview study using modified critical incident technique and framework analysis.SettingNewham, east London, a deprived area with a large mixed south Asian population.Participants58 south Asian and white adults with asthma (49 admitted to hospital with asthma, 9 not admitted); 17 general practitioners; 5 accident and emergency doctors; 2 out of hours general practitioners; 1 asthma specialist nurse.ResultsSouth Asian and white patients admitted to hospital coped differently with asthma. South Asians described less confidence in controlling their asthma, were unfamiliar with the concept of preventive medication, and often expressed less confidence in their general practitioner. South Asians managed asthma exacerbations with family advocacy, without systematic changes in prophylaxis, and without systemic corticosteroids. Patients describing difficulty accessing primary care during asthma exacerbations were registered with practices with weak strategies for asthma care and were often south Asian. Patients with easy access described care suggesting partnerships with their general practitioner, had better confidence to control asthma, and were registered with practices with well developed asthma strategies that included policies for avoiding hospital admission.ConclusionsThe different ways of coping with asthma exacerbations and accessing care may partly explain the increased risk of hospital admission in south Asian patients. Interventions that increase confidence to control asthma, confidence in the general practitioner, understanding of preventive treatment, and use of systemic corticosteroids in exacerbations may reduce hospital admissions. Development of more sophisticated asthma strategies by practices with better access and partnerships with patients may also achieve this.

What is already known on this topic

South Asian patients with asthma are at increased risk of hospital admission with asthma compared with white patientsNo consistent differences in severity or prevalence of asthma, prescribed drugs, or asthma education have been described, and interventions to reduce admission rates in Asian patients have met with variable success

What this study adds

Compared with white patients, south Asian patients admitted to hospital with asthma had less confidence to control asthma, were unfamiliar with the concept of preventive medication, and had less confidence in their general practitionersSouth Asian patients managed asthma attacks through family advocacy and without systematic changes in prophylaxis and without systemic corticosteroidsPatients reporting difficulty in accessing primary care during attacks were often south Asian     

General internal medicine reappears in the teaching hospital: the experience of the Royal Victoria Hospital.

The internal medicine unit of the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal was created in 1979 to improve the training of residents and the care of patients. The practices of four internists were brought together in one part of the institution, and within 2 years there were 10 attending staff and 6 residents. The unit now provides continuing care for 2500 patients, many of whom have multisystem or potentially lethal problems. Residents and attending staff share the responsibility of providing 24-hour coverage. The group handles 5000 outpatient visits per year (20% of them being consultations) and provides a general medical consulting service for other hospital departments, with about 300 consultations per year. The creation of the unit, with highly visible role models, appears to have given new prestige to general internists in the hospital. The unit has served as a model for the reorganization of the other medical clinics and provides a base for research in health care delivery.     

Serevent nationwide surveillance study: comparison of salmeterol with salbutamol in asthmatic patients who require regular bronchodilator treatment.

OBJECTIVE--To compare safety of salmeterol and salbutamol in treating asthma. DESIGN--Double blind, randomised clinical trial in parallel groups over 16 weeks. SETTING--General practices throughout the United Kingdom. SUBJECTS--25,180 patients with asthma considered to require regular treatment with bronchodilators who were recruited by their general practitioner (n = 3516). INTERVENTIONS--Salmeterol (Serevent) (50 micrograms twice daily) or salbutamol (200 micrograms four times a day) randomised in the ratio of two patients taking salmeterol to one taking salbutamol. All other drugs including prophylaxis against asthma were continued throughout the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--All serious events and reasons for withdrawals (medical and non-medical) whether or not they were considered to be related to the drugs. RESULTS--Fewer medical withdrawals due to asthma occurred in patients taking salmeterol than in those taking salbutamol (2.91% v 3.79%; chi 2 = 13.6, p = 0.0002). Mortality and admissions to hospital were as expected. There was a small but non-significant excess mortality in the group taking salmeterol and a significant excess of asthma events including deaths in patients with severe asthma on entry. Use of more than two canisters of bronchodilator a month was particularly associated with the occurrence of an adverse asthma event. CONCLUSIONS--Treatment over 16 weeks with either salmeterol or salbutamol was not associated with an incidence of deaths related to asthma in excess of that predicted. Overall control of asthma was better in patients allocated to salmeterol. Serious adverse events occurred in patients most at risk on entry and were probably due to the disease rather than treatment.     

How to achieve better outcome in treatment of asthma in general practice.

The symptoms of many asthmatic patients are poorly controlled, and there are several reasons why this may be so. Doctors fail to find out about symptoms that asthmatic patients are experiencing. Doctors wrongly assume that regular use of bronchodilators in small doses is satisfactory treatment for asthma and that taking high doses of bronchodilator in an asthma attack may be dangerous. Doctors think that inhaled steroids may be dangerous and are reluctant to use them in effective doses. Doctors do not check that patients can use their inhalers properly and do not make enough use of large volume spacers, the best available method for giving inhaled asthma treatment. Doctors undermine patients'' confidence in advice on treatment by failing to ensure that consistent advice is given and often make the management of asthma more troublesome for the patient than the symptoms of asthma.     

Combining specialist and primary health care teams for HIV positive patients: retrospective and prospective studies.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate a model of health care for HIV positive patients involving specialist, hospital based teams and primary health care teams. DESIGN: One year retrospective and a 2 1/2 year prospective study. SETTING: Two hospitals in West London and 88 general practitioners in 72 general hospitals. SUBJECTS: 209 adults with HIV infection. INTERVENTION: General practitioners enrolled in the project were faxed structured outpatient clinic summaries. When hospital inpatients were discharged, a brief discharge summary was faxed. General practitioners had access to consultant physicians skilled in HIV medicine through a 24 hour mobile telephone service. An HIV/AIDS management and treatment guide containing relevant local information was produced. Quarterly discussion forums for general practitioners were held, and a regular newsletter was produced. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital attendance and general practitioner consultations; perceived benefits and problems of patients and general practitioners. RESULTS: The average length of a hospital inpatient stay was halved for those patients who had participated in the project for two years, and the average number of visits to the outpatient clinic per month fell for patients with AIDS. There was a substantial increase in the number of visits to general practitioners by patients with AIDS and symptomatic HIV infection. Patients and general practitioners both felt that the standard of health care provided had improved. CONCLUSIONS: This model of health care efficiently and effectively utilised existing teams of hospital and primary health care professionals to provide care for HIV positive patients. Simple, prompt, and regular communication systems which provided information relevant to the needs of general practitioners were central to its success.     

Targeting asthma care in general practice using a morbidity index.

OBJECTIVES--To evaluate a morbidity index as a postal surveillance tool in defining previously diagnosed asthmatic patients needing extra education or management; to determine the accuracy of a computerised asthma register in general practice. DESIGN--Postal questionnaire survey of asthmatic patients identified from a computer register. Questionnaire comprised three morbidity questions, two questions about current asthma status, and one about treatments. SETTING--Urban general practice of 8400 patients linked to academic unit. SUBJECTS--853 asthmatic patients of all ages. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Numbers of patients with low, medium, and high morbidity; associations of these groups with age, asthma status, and drugs taken. RESULTS--Two mailings yielded 621 replies (73%); 28 patients (5%) had moved away, leaving 593 for analysis. Attempts were subsequently made to contact 20% sample of non-respondents. 234 respondents (40%) were in the "low morbidity" group, 149 (25%) in the "medium morbidity" group, and 210 (35%) in the "high morbidity" category. 53% of patients perceiving themselves as currently asthmatic (193/362) were in the high morbidity group, but 7% (11/153) who said they were no longer asthmatic and 8% (6/78) who did not believe they had ever been asthmatic were also in that group. High morbidity was also found in 10% (18/185) of those on no treatment, 38% (59/154) of those on bronchodilators alone, and 54% (119/220) of those on inhaled corticosteroids. 25 patients (4%) were wrongly identified as asthmatic; when combined with returns marked "gone away" this gave a disease register accuracy of 91%. CONCLUSIONS--This exercise identified subgroups of previously diagnosed asthmatic patients with high morbidity in general practice who might benefit from extra education and management and revealed some misclassification on the asthma disease register.     

Asthma mortality in Birmingham 1975-7: 53 deaths.

Out of 83 patients studied 72 were certified as dying from asthma, and 11 aged under 45 as dying from chronic bronchitis and pneumonia. Fifty-three deaths were thought to be due to asthma. There were avoidable factors associated with several of these deaths from asthma. Recent discharge from hospital (16%), non-availability of aerosol bronchodilators (45%), underuse of corticosteroids (66%), and lack of objective measurements of airflow obstruction (100%) were found in deaths outside hospital. Inadequate initial assessment including baseline spirometry and blood gases (50%), significant underusage of corticosteroids (93%) and intravenous and nebulised bronchodilators (100%), and failure to monitor treatment objectively (100%) were found in deaths in hospital. "False-positive" and "false-negative" certifications of asthma were studied, and the findings suggest that these may lead to appreciable inaccuracy in the reporting of deaths from asthma.     

Low incidence of pneumonia in COPD patients treated with inhaled corticosteroids undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation

Background

Based on meta-analyses results, it is currently acknowledged that there is an increased risk of pneumonia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) undergoing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) treatment. However, this is not found to be true in those with asthma. No data on this risk are available for COPD patients involved in pulmonary rehabilitation program (PR).

Methods

For 1 year, we prospectively studied 2 cohorts of COPD patients—undergoing PR and not undergoing PR. The first group included 438 patients undergoing PR of which 353 were treated with ICS, and 85 were treated with bronchodilators only. The second group was comprised of 76 COPD patients who were treated with ICS, but not PR. The control group consisted of 49 ICS-treated patients with asthma. The diagnosis of pneumonia, when suspected, had to be confirmed with a chest x-ray.

Results

Overall, 6 cases of pneumonia were diagnosed in the first study group: 5 ICS-treated patients and 1 patient treated only with bronchodilators. This corresponded to a rate of 1.41 and 1.17%, respectively, compared to a rate of 6.6% in COPD patients not treated with PR, which was significantly higher (p?=?0.029) than that in the first study group. No case of pneumonia was registered among patients with asthma.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that a significantly lower incidence of pneumonia is found in COPD patients treated with ICS and PR than in patients treated with ICS but not with PR. This observation deserves to be investigated in large populations of PR-treated COPD patients, possibly in multi-centric cohort studies.

     

Using information from asthma patients: a trial of information feedback in primary care.

OBJECTIVE--To test the effects of feedback of information about patients'' asthma to primary care teams. DESIGN--Patients'' reports of morbidity, use of health services, and drug use on questionnaire was given to primary care teams. Randomised controlled trial with general practices as the subject of the intervention was used to test effectiveness of supplying information. SETTING--Primary care in district health authority, London. SUBJECTS--23 general practices, each of which notified at least 20 asthmatic patients aged 15-60 years for each principal. Practices were randomly allocated to an invention group (receiving feedback of information on control of asthma) or a control group (no feedback). INTERVENTION--Information on cards inserted in patients'' medical records; booklet copies of information for team members; formal presentation to primary care teams; poster displays of data on patients in each practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Type and frequency of asthma symptoms, use of health services, use of asthma drugs. RESULTS--Reported morbidity at entry to the study was substantial: 45% (818) patients reported breathlessness at least once a week. Less than half these patients were using inhaled steroids regularly. Intervention and control groups did not differ in practice or patient characteristics on entry to the study. In spite of the potential for improvement no differences were observed between the two practice groups at the end of the study--for example, breathlessness at least once a week in last six months was experienced by 36% in intervention group v 35% in control group (t = -0.27, P < 0.79); surgery attendance in last six months by 48% v 48% (t = -0.05, P < 0.96); regular use of inhaled steroids by 60% v 58% (t = 0.51, P < 0.62). CONCLUSION--Feedback to general practitioners of information about patients'' asthma does not on its own lead to change in the outcome of clinical care.