Cluster randomised controlled trial of specialist-led integrated COPD care (INTEGR COPD).

OBJECTIVE: Studies in hospital settings demonstrate that there is greater guideline adherence when care is delivered by a respiratory specialist, however, this has not been explored in primary care. The aim of this study is to determine the impact integrating respiratory specialists into primary care has on the delivery of guideline adherent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care. METHODS: 18 general practitioner (GP) practices were randomised to provide either usual or specialist-led COPD care. Patients at participating practices were included if they had an existing diagnosis of COPD. Outcomes were measured at the individual patient level. The primary outcome was guideline adherence, assessed as achieving four or more items of the COPD care bundle. Secondary outcome measures included quality of life, number of exacerbations, number of COPD-related hospitalisations and respiratory outpatient attendances. RESULTS: 586 patients from 10 practices randomised to the intervention and 656 patients from 8 practices randomised to the control arm of the study were included. The integration of respiratory specialists into GP practices led to a statistically significant (p<0.001) improvement in the provision of guideline adherent care when compared with usual care in this cohort (92.7% vs 70.1%) (OR 4.14, 95% CI 2.14 to 8.03). CONCLUSION: This is the first study to demonstrate that guideline adherence is improved through the integration of respiratory specialists into GP practices to deliver annual COPD reviews. To facilitate changes in current healthcare practice and policy, the findings of this paper need to be viewed in combination with qualitative research exploring the acceptability of specialist integration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03482700.

Experience-based co-design to improve a pulmonary rehabilitation programme.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to investigate patient perspectives on attending pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). This qualitative case study identifies the benefits and challenges to attending PR and presents areas of improvements as recommended by patients. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A qualitative case study of a UK case study based on a PR programme based on undertaking focus groups (n=3) and interviews (n=15) with current and former patients. FINDINGS: The findings report patient perspectives of the challenges and benefits of attending a PR programme along with recommendations on how the service could be improved. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The authors focussed solely on a UK PR programme, so the findings might not be applicable to other countries if PR is organised and provided in a unique way or setting. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This paper provides valuable insights to patient perspectives offrom patients attending PR programmes, which are useful to those running and designing these services. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The findings identify the benefits and challenges for patients attending PR programmes and suggest areas where improvements can be made.

Feasibility of a pulmonary rehabilitation programme for patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Georgia: a single-site, randomised controlled trial from the Breathe Well Group.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of delivering a culturally tailored pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programme and conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT). DESIGN: A two-arm, randomised feasibility trial with a mixed-methods process evaluation. SETTING: Secondary care setting in Georgia, Europe. PARTICIPANTS: People with symptomatic spirometry-confirmed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease recruited from primary and secondary care. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to a control group or intervention comprising 16 twice-weekly group PR sessions tailored to the Georgian setting. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility of the intervention and RCT were assessed according to: study recruitment, consent and follow-up, intervention fidelity, adherence and acceptability, using questionnaires and measurements at baseline, programme end and 6 months, and through qualitative interviews. RESULTS: The study recruited 60 participants (as planned): 54 (90%) were male, 10 (17%) had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second of ≤50% predicted. The mean MRC Dyspnoea Score was 3.3 (SD 0.5), and mean St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) 50.9 (SD 17.6). The rehabilitation specialists delivered the PR with fidelity. Thirteen (43.0%) participants attended at least 75% of the 16 planned sessions. Participants and rehabilitation specialists in the qualitative interviews reported that the programme was acceptable, but dropout rates were high in participants who lived outside Tbilisi and had to travel large distances. Outcome data were collected on 63.3% participants at 8 weeks and 88.0% participants at 6 months. Mean change in SGRQ total was -24.9 (95% CI -40.3 to -9.6) at programme end and -4.4 (95% CI -12.3 to 3.4) at 6 months follow-up for the intervention group and -0.5 (95% CI -8.1 to 7.0) and -8.1 (95% CI -16.5 to 0.3) for the usual care group at programme end and 6 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible to deliver the tailored PR intervention. Approaches to improve uptake and adherence warrant further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16184185.