Promoting Participation in Pulmonary Rehabilitation after Hospitalization for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Strategies of Top-performing Systems: A Qualitative Study.

Rationale: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) after hospitalization for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is recommended by guidelines; however, few patients participate, and rates vary between hospitals. Objectives: To identify contextual factors and strategies that may promote participation in PR after hospitalization for COPD. Methods: Using a positive-deviance approach, we calculated hospital-specific rates of PR after hospitalization for COPD among a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries. At a purposive sample of high-performing and innovative hospitals in the United States, we conducted in-depth interviews with key stakeholders. We defined high-performing hospitals as having a PR rate above the 95th percentile, at least 6.58%. To learn from hospitals that demonstrated a commitment to improving rates of PR, regardless of PR rates after discharge, we identified innovative hospitals on the basis of a review of American Thoracic Society conference research presentations from prior years. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Using a directed content analysis approach, transcripts were coded iteratively to identify themes. Results: Interviews were conducted with 38 stakeholders at nine hospitals (seven high-performers and two innovators). Hospitals were diverse regarding size, teaching status, PR program characteristics, and geographic location. Participants included PR medical directors, PR managers, respiratory therapists, inpatient and outpatient providers, and others. We found that high-performing hospitals were broadly focused on improving care for patients with COPD, and several had recently implemented new initiatives to reduce rehospitalizations after admission for COPD in response to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services/Medicare's Hospital Readmission Reduction Program. Innovative and high-performing hospitals had systems in place to identify patients with COPD that enabled them to provide patient education and targeted discharge planning. Strategies took several forms, including the use of a COPD navigator or educator. In addition, we found that high-performing hospitals reported effective interprofessional and patient communication, had clinical champions or external change agents, and received support from hospital leadership. Specific strategies to promote PR included education of referring providers, education of patients to increase awareness of PR and its benefits, and direct assistance in overcoming barriers. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that successful efforts to increase participation in PR may be most effective when part of a larger strategy to improve outcomes for patients with COPD. Further research is necessary to test the generalizability of our findings.

A Geographic Analysis of Racial Disparities in Use of Pulmonary Rehabilitation After Hospitalization for COPD Exacerbation.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) after hospitalization for an exacerbation of COPD, but few patients enroll in PR. We explored whether density of PR programs explained regional variation and racial disparities in receipt of PR. METHODS: We used Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data from 223,832 Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for COPD during 2012 who were eligible for PR postdischarge. We used Hospital-Referral Regions (HRR) as the unit of analysis. For each HRR, we calculated the density of PR programs as a measure of program access and estimated risk-standardized rates of PR within 6 months of discharge overall, and for non-Hispanic, white, and black beneficiaries. We used linear regression to examine the relationship between access to PR and HRR PR rates. We tested for racial disparity in PR rates among non-Hispanic white and black beneficiaries living in the same HRRs. RESULTS: Across 306 HRRs, the median number of PR programs per 1,000 Medicare beneficiaries was 0.06 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.04-0.10). Risk-standardized rates of PR ranged from 0.53% to 6.67% (median, 1.93%). Density of PR programs was positively associated with PR rates overall and among non-Hispanic white beneficiaries (P < .001), but this relationship was not observed among black beneficiaries. Rates were higher among non-Hispanic white beneficiaries (median, 2.08%; IQR, 1.54%-2.87%) compared with black beneficiaries (median, 1.19%; IQR, 1.15%-1.20%). CONCLUSIONS: Greater PR program density was associated with higher rates of PR for non-Hispanic white but not black beneficiaries. Further research is needed to identify reasons for this discrepancy and strategies to increase receipt of PR for black patients.