The Path to Diagnosis of Severe Asthma-A Qualitative Exploration.

Purpose: Severe asthma poses a significant health burden in those with the disease, therefore a timely diagnosis can ensure patients receive specialist care and appropriate medication management. This study qualitatively explored the patient experience of adult Australians with severe asthma regarding specialist referral, to identify potential opportunities to streamline the process of severe asthma diagnosis and treatment and optimise referral pathways. Patients and Methods: Adults currently being treated with medication for severe asthma were invited to participate in this study. Participants were interviewed and asked to describe initial diagnosis of their asthma or severe asthma, and how they came to be referred to secondary care. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded by two members of the research team and thematically analysed. Results: Thirty-two people completed the study; 72% were female. Mean interview length was 33 minutes. The major themes generated were patient-related factors contributing to seeking a severe asthma diagnosis; perceptions of health care provision; diagnosis of severe asthma and the referral journey. Key findings were that both patient and healthcare provider attitudes contributed to participants' willingness to seek or receive a referral, and referral to respiratory specialists was often delayed. Contributing factors included a mismatch between patient expectations and general practice, lack of continuity of primary care, and a lack of patient understanding of the role of the respiratory specialist. Conclusion: Timely severe asthma diagnosis in Australia appears to be hampered by an absence of a clear referral process, lack of general practitioner (GP) knowledge of additional treatment options, underutilisation of pharmacists, and multiple specialists treating patient comorbidities. Directions for future research might include interviewing healthcare providers regarding how well the referral process works for severe asthma patients, and researching the time between referral and when a patient sees the respiratory specialist.

Real-world biologics response and super-response in the International Severe Asthma Registry cohort.

BACKGROUND: Biologic asthma therapies reduce exacerbations and long-term oral corticosteroids (LTOCS) use in randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, there are limited data on outcomes among patients ineligible for RCTs. Hence, we investigated responsiveness to biologics in a real-world population of adults with severe asthma. METHODS: Adults in the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) with ≥24 weeks of follow-up were grouped into those who did, or did not, initiate biologics (anti-IgE, anti-IL5/IL5R, anti-IL4/13). Treatment responses were examined across four domains: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) increase by ≥100 mL, improved asthma control, annualized exacerbation rate (AER) reduction ≥50%, and any LTOCS dose reduction. Super-response criteria were: FEV1 increase by ≥500 mL, new well-controlled asthma, no exacerbations, and LTOCS cessation or tapering to ≤5 mg/day. RESULTS: 5.3% of ISAR patients met basic RCT inclusion criteria; 2116/8451 started biologics. Biologic initiators had worse baseline impairment than non-initiators, despite having similar biomarker levels. Half or more of initiators had treatment responses: 59% AER reduction, 54% FEV1 increase, 49% improved control, 49% reduced LTOCS, of which 32%, 19%, 30%, and 39%, respectively, were super-responses. Responses/super-responses were more frequent in biologic initiators than in non-initiators; nevertheless, ~40-50% of initiators did not meet response criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with severe asthma are ineligible for RCTs of biologic therapies. Biologics are initiated in patients who have worse baseline impairments than non-initiators despite similar biomarker levels. Although biologic initiators exhibited clinical responses and super-responses in all outcome domains, 40-50% did not meet the response criteria.

Association between pre-biologic T2-biomarker combinations and response to biologics in patients with severe asthma.

Background: To date, studies investigating the association between pre-biologic biomarker levels and post-biologic outcomes have been limited to single biomarkers and assessment of biologic efficacy from structured clinical trials. Aim: To elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life. Methods: This was a registry-based, cohort study using data from 23 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry (May 2017-February 2023). The investigated biomarkers (highest pre-biologic levels) were immunoglobulin E (IgE), blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Pre- to approximately 12-month post-biologic change for each of three asthma outcome domains (i.e. exacerbation rate, symptom control and lung function), and the association of this change with pre-biologic biomarkers was investigated for individual and combined biomarkers. Results: Overall, 3751 patients initiated biologics and were included in the analysis. No association was found between pre-biologic BEC and pre-to-post biologic change in exacerbation rate for any biologic class. However, higher pre-biologic BEC and FeNO were both associated with greater post-biologic improvement in FEV1 for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R, with a trend for anti-IL4Rα. Mean FEV1 improved by 27-178 mL post-anti-IgE as pre-biologic BEC increased (250 to 1000 cells/µL), and by 43-216 mL and 129-250 mL post-anti-IL5/5R and -anti-IL4Rα, respectively along the same BEC gradient. Corresponding improvements along a FeNO gradient (25-100 ppb) were 41-274 mL, 69-207 mL and 148-224 mL for anti-IgE, anti-IL5/5R, and anti-IL4Rα, respectively. Higher baseline BEC was also associated with lower probability of uncontrolled asthma (OR 0.392; p=0.001) post-biologic for anti-IL5/5R. Pre-biologic IgE was a poor predictor of subsequent pre-to-post-biologic change for all outcomes assessed for all biologics. The combination of BEC + FeNO marginally improved the prediction of post-biologic FEV1 increase (adjusted R2: 0.751), compared to BEC (adjusted R2: 0.747) or FeNO alone (adjusted R2: 0.743) (p=0.005 and <0.001, respectively); however, this prediction was not improved by the addition of IgE. Conclusions: The ability of higher baseline BEC, FeNO and their combination to predict biologic-associated lung function improvement may encourage earlier intervention in patients with impaired lung function or at risk of accelerated lung function decline.

Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow and Critical Inhalation Errors are Associated with Higher COPD-Related Healthcare Costs.

Purpose: To assess the relationship between suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow (sPIF), inhalation technique errors, and non-adherence, with Healthcare Resource Utilisation (HCRU) in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients receiving maintenance therapy via a Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI). Patients and methods: The cross-sectional, multi-country PIFotal study included 1434 COPD patients (≥40 years) using a DPI for maintenance therapy. PIF was measured with the In-Check DIAL G16, and sPIF was defined as a typical PIF lower than required for the device. Inhalation technique was assessed by standardised evaluation of video recordings and grouped into 10 steps. Patients completed the "Test of Adherence to Inhalers" questionnaire. HCRU was operationalised as COPD-related costs for primary healthcare, secondary healthcare, medication, and total COPD-related costs in a 1-year period. Results: Participants with sPIF had higher medication costs compared with those with optimal PIF (cost ratio [CR]: 1.07, 95% CI [1.01, 1.14]). Multiple inhalation technique errors were associated with increased HCRU. Specifically, "insufficient inspiratory effort" with higher secondary healthcare costs (CR: 2.20, 95% CI [1.37, 3.54]) and higher total COPD-related costs (CR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31). "no breath-hold following the inhalation manoeuvre (<6 s)" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.08, 95% CI [1.02, 1.15]) and total COPD-related costs (CR 1.17, 95% CI [1.07, 1.28]), and "not breathing out calmly after inhalation" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.19, 95% CI [1.04, 1.37]). Non-adherence was not significantly associated with HCRU. Conclusion: sPIF and inhalation technique errors were associated with higher COPD-related healthcare utilisation and costs in COPD patients on DPI maintenance therapy.

Physiological predictors Of peak inspiRatory flow using Observed lung function resultS (POROS): evaluation at discharge among patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation.

BACKGROUND: Peak inspiratory flow (PIF) as generated through the resistance of a dry powder inhaler (DPI) device is a critical patient-dependent maneuver impacting the success of DPI medication delivery. Despite its importance, it is not routinely measured in clinical practice. Little is currently known about the relationship, if any, between PIF through DPI devices, routine spirometry and disease outcomes. AIM: The aim of this study was to identify potential predictors of PIF for different DPIs from spirometric parameters and patient characteristics and explore the association between PIF and follow-up events. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study at discharge among patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation at Attikon hospital, Athens, Greece. Spirometry was performed using an Easy on-PC™ spirometer. PIF was measured through four DPI resistances using the In-Check™ DIAL. Regression analyses were used to investigate the association between PIF through resistances and spirometric parameters obtained at discharge, comorbidities and demographic parameters. RESULTS: Forty-seven COPD patients (mean [±SD], age 71 [±9] years, 72% males, 51% current smokers) were included in this study. Overall, 85% and 15% were classified as GOLD (2017) groups D and C, respectively. Most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension (70%) and cardiovascular disease (53%). In the final regression model, higher PIF was significantly associated with the following: higher FEV1 and % predicted peak expiratory flow (PEF) for Turbohaler® (R-squared value 0.374); higher FEV1 and diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) for Aerolizer® (R-squared value 0.209) and higher FEV1, younger age and diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (IHD) for Diskus® (R-squared value 0.350). However, R-squared values for all three devices were weak (<0.4). CONCLUSION: The study did not provide evidence to support the use of surrogate measurements for PIF through device resistance, which could assist in determining the appropriateness of inhaler device type. Although PIF measurement is feasible in patients at discharge and could be a valuable addition to the standard of care in COPD management, it needs to be measured directly.

Real-life treatment of rhinitis in Australia: a historical cohort study of prescription and over-the-counter therapies for patients with and without additional respiratory disease.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to explore rhinitis therapy purchases in different Australian regions for patients with and without additional respiratory disease, using both doctor's prescriptions and over-the-counter (OTC) medications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: It was a historical cohort study of pharmacy-related claims that included prescription or OTC rhinitis therapy, with or without asthma/COPD therapy, from January 2013 to December 2014. RESULTS: Overall, 4,247,193 prescription and OTC rhinitis treatments were purchased from 909 pharmacies over a calendar year; the majority were single-therapy purchases for rhinitis only patients. More multiple-therapy was purchased for rhinitis and asthma/COPD patients (4.4%) than for rhinitis only patients (4.0%), with a greater proportion purchased in VIC, SA and TAS (4.7% of rhinitis only patients and 4.5% of rhinitis and asthma/COPD patients) than in other areas. Dual therapy of oral antihistamine (OAH) and intranasal corticosteroid (INS) were the most frequently purchased multiple-therapy, with higher purchasing rates for rhinitis and asthma/COPD patients (2.6%) than for rhinitis only patients (1.6%). The most frequently purchased single therapy was OAH (70.1% of rhinitis only patients and 57.3% of rhinitis and asthma/COPD patients). First-line INS therapy was more likely to be purchased for rhinitis and asthma/COPD patients (15.3% by prescription and 11.7% OTC) than for rhinitis only patients (5.0% by prescription and 9.2% OTC); however, geographical differences in the proportion of therapies purchased OTC were noted, with a lower proportion of OTC OAH and INS purchases in Queensland and the Northern Territory for patients with and without comorbid respiratory disease. CONCLUSION: Purchases of first-line INS therapy are more likely for patients with comorbid respiratory disease if they have received prescriptions and information/advice from their general practitioner. The study results indicate a need for patient information/education at the point-of-sale of OTC OAHs to enable patients to assess their nasal symptoms and receive treatment support from pharmacists. Greater availability to INSs in pharmacies as well as guidance from current guidelines and instruction in correct intranasal technique may also lead to greater uptake of INSs.

Identifying Critical Errors: Addressing Inhaler Technique in the Context of Asthma Management.

Medication use has always played a highly significant role in the overall management of asthma, with appropriate use being linked to good asthma control. However, while patients with asthma enjoy the 'luxury' of having medications delivered directly to the lungs via inhaler devices, with that comes the additional challenge of ensuring that inhaler devices are used correctly. Research and practice provides evidence to the challenges associated with inhaler use and the particular steps that patients perform incorrectly. While this problem is well documented, acknowledged and reported, little has changed in 40 years, and the proportion of patients using inhaler devices remains unacceptably high. This review focuses on aspects specific to the errors that patient's make, the significance of these errors, and the important considerations for health care practitioners in supporting patients in correctly using their inhalers. This review highlights the complexities associated with patient's making inhaler technique errors and highlights the opportunities that lie in future technological developments of inhaler devices. Now more than ever, in the era of precision medicine, it is important that we address inhaler technique use once and for all.

Seasonal patterns of oral antihistamine and intranasal corticosteroid purchases from Australian community pharmacies: a retrospective observational study.

PURPOSE: To explore patterns in the purchase of prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) oral antihistamines (OAHs) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) by patients, from pharmacies in different geographical regions of Australia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study using a database containing anonymous pharmacy transaction data from 20.0% of the pharmacies in Australia that link doctor prescriptions and OTC information. Pharmacy purchases of at least one prescription or OTC rhinitis treatment during 2013 and 2014 were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 4,247,193 prescription and OTC rhinitis treatments were purchased from 909 pharmacies over 12 months. Of treatments purchased, 75.9% were OAHs and 16.6% were INCSs. OTC purchases of both treatments exceeded purchases through prescription. OTC OAHs purchasing patterns were seasonal and almost identical in the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, and New South Wales, and similar seasonal patterns for OTC INCSs were noted in most regions except for South Australia and Tasmania. Prescription purchasing patterns of both OAHs and INCSs remained unchanged throughout the year in most regions. CONCLUSION: This large-scale retrospective observational study identified seasonal purchasing patterns of OTC and prescription OAHs and INCSs in a real-world setting. It highlighted that seasonality only affects OTC purchasing patterns of OAHs and INCSs across Australia and that practitioner prescribing remains unchanged, suggesting that it is only for persistent disease.

Medication-related costs of rhinitis in Australia: a NostraData cross-sectional study of pharmacy purchases.

PURPOSE: There is a relative paucity of research regarding medication expenditure associated with multiple-therapy use for rhinitis in Australia. To describe 1) the nature and extent of multiple-therapy use for rhinitis in Australia using data on therapies purchased with prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) and 2) additional costs incurred by multiple-therapy use compared with intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) therapy alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study was carried out using a database containing anonymous pharmacy transaction data available from 20% of pharmacies in Australia that links doctor prescriptions and OTC purchase information. Pharmacy purchases of at least one prescription or OTC rhinitis treatment, with or without additional asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapy, by patients during 2013 and 2014 were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 4,247,193 prescription and OTC rhinitis treatments were purchased from 909 pharmacies over 24 months. The majority of rhinitis therapy transactions were single-therapy purchases without additional asthma/COPD therapy. Of the single therapies purchased, 73% were oral antihistamines (OAHs) and 15% were INCS therapy. Dual-therapy purchases of INCSs and OAHs accounted for 40% of multiple-therapy purchases. Patients frequently purchased OAHs, nonsteroidal nasal sprays, and eye drops for allergic conjunctivitis alongside INCSs, resulting in higher financial costs (up to AU$21 per treatment episode) compared with INCS monotherapy. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted the significant burden posed on community pharmacy to address the needs of people with rhinitis symptoms, and the failure to translate the evidence that INCSs are the most effective monotherapy for moderate to severe and/or persistent rhinitis into clinical practice in light of the lack of evidence supporting combination of INCS and OAH therapy. Health care professional engagement, especially at the pharmacy level, will be extremely important if we wish to ensure that the purchase of rhinitis treatment is in accordance with guidelines and that their use is optimal.

Knowledge that people with intellectual disabilities have of their inhaled asthma medications: messages for pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Fifteen percent of Australians with intellectual disability (ID) are reported to have asthma. People with ID are at risk of poor health knowledge due to deficits in intellectual and adaptive functioning, but their medication knowledge has largely been ignored in research to date. OBJECTIVE: To explore the level of understanding of asthma medication use of people with ID who self-administer their inhaled medications, in order to inform future educational support. Setting The research was conducted in NSW, Australia, at the participants' homes, the point of health care access, or the offices of relevant support organisations. METHOD: In this qualitative study face-to-face interviews were conducted with people with ID using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Main outcome Identification of barriers to asthma medication self-management by people with ID. RESULTS: Seventeen people with ID who self-administer their asthma medications were interviewed. Factors influencing their asthma medication knowledge and use included understanding of their illness and the need for medication; aspects of self-management and autonomy versus dependence. This sample of people with ID had a good understanding of the importance of using their inhaled asthma medications, as well as asthma triggers, and the difference between use of preventer and reliever medications. Both enablers and barriers to asthma medication self-management were identified in the domains of managing attacks, adherence, knowledge of side effects and sources of information on correct use of inhalers. The level of autonomy for medication use varied, with motivation to self-manage asthma influenced by the level of support that was practically available to individual participants. CONCLUSION: This research investigated aspects of asthma medication self-management of people with ID. Based on the barriers identified, pharmacists should promote use of spacers and written asthma action plans as well as counsel people with ID about how to recognise and minimise side effects of asthma medications. Specific strategies for pharmacists when educating people with ID and their caregivers include active listening to determine understanding of concepts, exercising care with language, and working with the person's known routines to maximise adherence with preventer medications.

Patient asthma networks: understanding who is important and why.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary care (MDC) has been proposed as an essential component to the delivery of effective and efficient health care. However, patients have shown to establish their own sources of health advice and support outside the professional domain. It remained unclear as to how patients' choices may impact on MDC. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the role of patients in MDC, specifically (i) how and why patients select sources of health services, information and support, that is, their health connections and (ii) the key elements contributing to the nature and development of patients' health connections. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with asthma participants from Sydney, Australia. Participants were recruited from a broad range of primary health-care access points. Face-to-face and telephone interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, independently reviewed by two authors and analysed using a qualitative approach. RESULTS: A total of 47 interviews were conducted. Participants established health connections around their asthma needs and selected a combination of professional, personal and impersonal health connections for advice and support. Several key elements were reported to contribute towards the nature and development of patients' health networks. These included participants' perceptions of the role of HCPs, their level of trust in relationships, the convenience of accessing health advice and their perceptions of asthma. CONCLUSION: By exploring patients' sources of health advice and support, this research provided new insight into how patients choose to manage asthma, particularly the way in which they selected health connections and their potential impact on MDC.

A pharmacy asthma service achieves a change in patient responses from increased awareness to taking responsibility for their asthma.

OBJECTIVES: If novel health services are to be implemented and sustained in practice, the perceptions and views of patients form a critical part of their evaluation. The aims of this study were to explore patient's perceptions and experiences with a pharmacy asthma service and to investigate if there was a change over time. METHODS: Interviews and focus groups were conducted with patients participating in the asthma service at three time points. Data were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed using a framework approach. KEY FINDINGS: The service led to an enhanced awareness and understanding of asthma, changes in participants' beliefs and attitudes towards asthma management, changes in asthma-related health behaviours and improved self-efficacy. Participants were very positive about the service and the role of the pharmacist in asthma management. There was a shift in participant perceptions and views, from being at an abstract level in those who had completed just one visit of the service to a more experiential level in those who had experienced the entire comprehensive asthma service. CONCLUSIONS: A sustained experience/multiple visits in a service may lead to more concrete changes in patient perceptions of severity, beliefs, health behaviours and enhanced self-efficacy and control. The study highlights a need for such asthma services in the community.

Development and evaluation of an innovative model of inter-professional education focused on asthma medication use.

BACKGROUND: Inter-professional learning has been promoted as the solution to many clinical management issues. One such issue is the correct use of asthma inhaler devices. Up to 80% of people with asthma use their inhaler device incorrectly. The implications of this are poor asthma control and quality of life. Correct inhaler technique can be taught, however these educational instructions need to be repeated if correct technique is to be maintained. It is important to maximise the opportunities to deliver this education in primary care. In light of this, it is important to explore how health care providers, in particular pharmacists and general medical practitioners, can work together in delivering inhaler technique education to patients, over time. Therefore, there is a need to develop and evaluate effective inter-professional education, which will address the need to educate patients in the correct use of their inhalers as well as equip health care professionals with skills to engage in collaborative relationships with each other. METHODS: This mixed methods study involves the development and evaluation of three modules of continuing education, Model 1, Model 2 and Model 3. A fourth group, Model 4, acting as a control.Model 1 consists of face-to-face continuing professional education on asthma inhaler technique, aimed at pharmacists, general medical practitioners and their practice nurses.Model 2 is an electronic online continuing education module based on Model 1 principles.Model 3 is also based on asthma inhaler technique education but employs a learning intervention targeting health care professional relationships and is based on sociocultural theory.This study took the form of a parallel group, repeated measure design. Following the completion of continuing professional education, health care professionals recruited people with asthma and followed them up for 6 months. During this period, inhaler device technique training was delivered and data on patient inhaler technique, clinical and humanistic outcomes were collected. Outcomes related to professional collaborative relationships were also measured. DISCUSSION: Challenges presented included the requirement of significant financial resources for development of study materials and limited availability of validated tools to measure health care professional collaboration over time.

Respiratory medication use in an Australian developmental disability clinic population: messages for health care professionals.

Australian data suggest up to 15% of people with intellectual disability (ID) have asthma. The inhaled route of administration is optimal for the management of obstructive airways diseases; however, correct inhaler use requires dexterity and particular breathing patterns and potentially represents a problem in this population due to physical and cognitive deficits. Understanding the nature and extent of inhaler use in persons with ID is important, as correct inhaler technique is imperative for optimal clinical outcomes; however, currently no evidence base exists to inform health professionals. This study describes respiratory medication use, reported prevalence of asthma, and asthma management practices undertaken in a clinic sample of Australian adults with ID. Results showed a prevalence of retrospectively reported asthma of 6%, with 86% of asthma patients prescribed inhaled medication. A review of patient records also indicated omission of some recommended asthma management strategies.

Checklists for powder inhaler technique: a review and recommendations.

Turbuhaler and Diskus are commonly used powder inhaler devices for patients with respiratory disease. Their effectiveness is limited in part by a patient's ability to use them correctly. This has led to numerous studies being conducted over the last decade to assess the correct use of these devices by patients and health care professionals. These studies have generally used device-specific checklists to assess technique, this being the most feasible and accessible method for assessment. However, divergence between the checklists and scoring systems for the same device in different studies makes direct comparison of results difficult and at times inappropriate. Little evidence is available to assess the relative importance of different criteria; however, brief patient training based on specific inhaler technique checklists leads to significant improvement in asthma outcomes. This paper reviews common checklists and scoring systems used for Turbuhaler and Diskus, discusses the problem of heterogeneity between different checklists, and finally recommends suitable checklists and scoring systems for these devices based on the literature and previous findings. Only when similar checklists are used across different research studies will accurate comparisons and meta-analysis be possible.

Primary health care teams and the patient perspective: a social network analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary care (MDC) has been proposed as a potential strategy to address the rising challenges of modern health issues. However, it remains unclear as to how patients' health connections may impact on multidisciplinary processes and outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This research aims to gain a deeper understanding of patients' potential role in MDC: i) describe patients' health networks, ii) compare different care groups, iii) gain an understanding of the nature and extent of their interactions, and iv) identify the role of pharmacists within patient networks. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with asthma patients from Sydney, Australia. Participants were recruited from a range of standard asthma health care access points (community group) and a specialized multidisciplinary asthma clinic (clinic group). Quantitative social network analysis provided structural insight into asthma networks while qualitative social network analysis assisted in interpretation of network data. RESULTS: A total of 47 interviews were conducted (26 community group participants and 21 clinic group participants). Although participants' asthma networks consisted of a range of health care professionals (HCPs), these did not reflect or encourage MDC. Not only did participants favor minimal interaction with any HCP, they preferred sole-charge care and were found to strongly rely on lay individuals such as family and friends. While general practitioners and respiratory specialists were participants' principal choice of HCP, community pharmacists were less regarded. CONCLUSION: Limited opportunities were presented for HCPs to collaborate, particularly pharmacists. As patients' choices of HCPs may strongly influence collaborative processes and outcomes, this research highlights the need to consider patient perspectives in the development of MDC models in primary care.

Multidisciplinary collaboration in primary care: through the eyes of patients.

Managing chronic illness is highly complex and the pathways to access health care for the patient are unpredictable and often unknown. While multidisciplinary care (MDC) arrangements are promoted in the Australian primary health care system, there is a paucity of research on multidisciplinary collaboration from patients' perspectives. This exploratory study is the first to gain an understanding of the experiences, perceptions, attitudes and potential role of people with chronic illness (asthma) on the delivery of MDC in the Australian primary health care setting. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with asthma patients from Sydney, Australia. Qualitative analysis of data indicates that patients are significant players in MDC and their perceptions of their chronic condition, perceived roles of health care professionals, and expectations of health care delivery, influence their participation and attitudes towards multidisciplinary services. Our research shows the challenges presented by patients in the delivery and establishment of multidisciplinary health care teams, and highlights the need to consider patients' perspectives in the development of MDC models in primary care.

Feasibility and effectiveness of an evidence-based asthma service in Australian community pharmacies: a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility, effectiveness, and sustainability of a pharmacy asthma service in primary care. METHODS: A pragmatic cluster randomized trial in community pharmacies in four Australian states/territories in 2009. Specially trained pharmacists were randomized to deliver an asthma service in two groups, providing three versus four consultations over 6 months. People with poorly controlled asthma or no recent asthma review were included. Follow-up for 12 months after service completion occurred in 30% of randomly selected completing patients. Outcomes included change in asthma control (poor and fair/good) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score, inhaler technique, quality of life, perceived control, adherence, asthma knowledge, and asthma action plan ownership. RESULTS: Ninety-six pharmacists enrolled 570 patients, with 398 (70%) completing. Asthma control significantly improved with both the three- and four-visit service, with no significant difference between groups (good/fair control 29% and 21% at baseline, 61% and 59% at end, p = .791). Significant improvements were also evident in the ACQ (mean change 0.56), inhaler technique (17-33% correct baseline, 57-72% end), asthma action plan ownership (19% baseline, 56% end), quality of life, adherence, perceived control, and asthma knowledge, with no significant difference between groups for any variable. Outcomes were sustained at 12 months post-service. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacy asthma service delivered clinically important improvements in both a three-visit and four-visit service. Pharmacists were able to recruit and deliver the service with minimal intervention, suggesting it is practical to implement in practice. The three-visit service would be feasible and effective to implement, with a review at 12 months.