Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/67004
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Does spirometry training in general practice improve quality and outcomes of asthma care?
Author: Holton, C.
Crockett, A.
Nelson, M.
Ryan, P.
Wood-Baker, R.
Stocks, N.
Briggs, N.
Beilby, J.
Citation: International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2011; 23(5):545-553
Publisher: Oxford Univ Press
Issue Date: 2011
ISSN: 1353-4505
1464-3677
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Christine Holton, Alan Crockett, Mark Nelson, Philip Ryan, Richard Wood-Baker, Nigel Stocks, Nancy Briggs and Justin Beilby
Abstract: Objective: Clinical asthma guidelines recommend spirometry for asthma diagnosis, but there is inconsistent evidence about benefits to patients in using it for ongoing management. Our aim was to determine whether training in the use of spirometry for management of asthma provided better health outcomes and improved the quality of care in the primary care setting. Design: Pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. Setting: General practices in two states of Australia. Participants: Forty practices and 397 adults with asthma. Intervention: The staff of 26 intervention practices received comprehensive spirometry training. Fourteen control practices provided usual care. Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome measures were quality of life, self-reported asthma symptoms and lung function. Secondary measures related to the process of care (e.g. performance of spirometry, preparation of a written asthma action plan) and patient and general practitioner rating of the acceptability and usefulness of spirometry. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups at 12 months for quality of life (mean difference = −0.23; 95% CI: −0.44, −0.01), days off work (rate ratio = 1.52; 95% CI: 0.91, 2.54), exacerbations (rate ratio = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.41), asthma on waking (rate ratio = 1.21; 95% CI: 0.79, 1.85), nocturnal asthma (rate ratio = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.51) and post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio (mean difference = −0.01, 95% CI: −0.03, 0.02). There was no improvement in the quality of care provided. Conclusions: Training in spirometry did not result in any measurable improvement in the use of spirometry, quality of management of asthma or patient outcomes in primary care.
Keywords: asthma; spirometry; primary care; randomized controlled trial
Rights: © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care; all rights reserved.
RMID: 0020112355
DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzr039
Appears in Collections:Public Health publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.