Earlier diagnosis and earlier treatment of COPD in primary care.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive disease that begins many years before a diagnosis is usually made. The need for an early and confirmed diagnosis of COPD is increasingly appreciated by primary care physicians in whose hands the ability to make improvements in early diagnosis largely rests. Case-finding of patients with symptoms of lifestyle limitation is probably the most practical way to achieve early diagnosis. Evidence suggests a burden of early COPD on afflicted people and their families. Early encouragement of smoking cessation, in conjunction with management of symptoms and treating activity limitation and exacerbations by appropriate non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic management at the earliest possible stage, could positively affect the impact and progression of the disease.

Can asthma control be improved by understanding the patient's perspective?

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials show that asthma can be controlled in the majority of patients, but poorly controlled asthma still imposes a considerable burden. The level of asthma control achieved reflects the behaviour of both healthcare professionals and patients. A key challenge for healthcare professionals is to help patients to engage in self-management behaviours with optimal adherence to appropriate treatment. These issues are particularly relevant in primary care, where most asthma is managed. An international panel of experts invited by the International Primary Care Respiratory Group considered the evidence and discussed the implications for primary care practice. DISCUSSION: Causes of poor control: Clinical factors such as exposure to triggers and concomitant rhinitis are important but so are patient behavioural factors. Behaviours such as smoking and nonadherence may reduce the efficacy of treatment and patients' perceptions influence these behaviours. Perceptual barriers to adherence include doubting the need for treatment when symptoms are absent and concerns about potential adverse effects. Under-treatment may also be related to patients' underestimation of the significance of symptoms, and lack of awareness of achievable control. IMPLICATIONS: Three key implications for healthcare professionals emerged from the debate. First, the need for simple tools to assess asthma control. Two approaches considered were the monitoring of biometric markers of control and questionnaires to record patient-reported outcomes. Second, to understand the reasons for poor control for individual patients, identifying both clinical (e.g. rhinitis) and behavioural factors (e.g. smoking and nonadherence to treatment). Third was the need to incorporate, within asthma review, an assessment of patient perspectives including their goals and aspirations and to elicit their beliefs and concerns about asthma and its treatment. This can be used as a basis for agreement between the healthcare professional and patient on a predefined target regarding asthma control and a treatment plan to achieve this. SUMMARY: Optimum review of asthma is essential to improve control. A key priority is the development of simple and effective tools for identifying poor control for individual patients coupled with a tailored approach to treatment to enable patients to set and achieve realistic goals for asthma control.

Can a GP be a generalist and a specialist? Stakeholders views on a respiratory General Practitioner with a special interest service in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Primary care practitioners have a potentially important role in the delivery of specialist care for people with long-term respiratory diseases. Within the UK the development of a General Practitioner with Special Interests (GPwSI) service delivered within Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) involves a process of 'transitional change' which impacts on the professional roles of clinicians who may embrace or resist change. In addition, the perspective of patients on the new roles is important. The objective of the current study is to explore the attitudes and views of stakeholders to the provision of a respiratory GPwSI service within the six PCTs in Leicester, UK. METHODS: Using a qualitative design, GPs, nurses, secondary care doctors, nurse specialists, physiotherapists, a healthcare manager and patients with respiratory disease took part in focus groups and in-depth interviews. RESULTS: The 25 participants expressed diverse opinions about the challenge of integrating specialist services with generalist care and the specific contribution that GPs might make to the care of people with chronic respiratory disease. A range of potential roles for a respiratory GPwSI, working as part of a multi-disciplinary team, were suggested, and a number of practical issues were highlighted. Success of the GPwSI role is deemed to be dependent on having the trust of their primary and secondary care colleagues as well as patients, credibility as a practitioner, and being politically astute thereby enabling them to act as a champion supporting the transition process within the local health service. CONCLUSION: The introduction of a respiratory GPwSI service represents a challenge to traditional roles which, whilst broadly acceptable, raised a number of important issues for the stakeholders in our study. These perspectives need to be taken into account if workforce change is to be successfully negotiated and implemented.