Projecting the COPD population and costs in England and Scotland: 2011 to 2030.

We aimed to estimate the prevalence, healthcare costs and number of deaths among people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in England and Scotland 2011-2030. We adapted the Dutch COPD Model by using English and Scottish demographic, COPD incidence, COPD prevalence, smoking prevalence and mortality data to make projections. In England, the prevalence of COPD was estimated to be 1.79% (95% uncertainty interval 1.77-1.81) in 2011, increasing to 2.19% (1.85-2.33) by 2030. In Scotland, prevalence was 2.03% (1.96-2.10) in 2011 increasing to 2.20% (1.98-2.40) in 2030. These increases were driven by more women developing COPD. Annual direct healthcare costs of COPD in England were estimated to increase from £1.50 billon (1.18-2.50) in 2011 to £2.32 (1.85-3.08) billion in 2030. In Scotland, costs increased from £159 million (128-268) in 2011 to £207 (165-274) million in 2030. The deaths in England were estimated to increase from 99,200 (92,500-128,500) in 2011, to 129,400 (126,400-133,400) by 2030. In Scotland, in 2011 there were 9,700 (9,000-12,300) deaths and 13,900 (13,400-14,500) deaths in 2030. The number of people with COPD will increase substantially over the coming years in England and Scotland, particularly in females. Services need to adapt to this increasing demand.

Computer decision support systems for asthma: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Increasing use of electronic health records offers the potential to incorporate computer decision support systems (CDSSs) to prompt evidence-based actions within routine consultations. AIM: To synthesise the evidence for the use of CDSSs by professionals managing people with asthma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Health Technology Assessment, Cochrane and Inspec databases (1990 to April 2012, no language restrictions) for trials, and four online repositories for unpublished studies. We also wrote to authors. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials of CDSSs supporting professional management of asthma. Studies were appraised (Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool) and findings synthesised narratively. RESULTS: A total of 5787 articles were screened, and eight trials were found eligible, with six at high risk of bias. Overall, CDSSs for professionals were ineffective. Usage of the systems was generally low: in the only trial at low risk of bias the CDSS was not used at all. When a CDSS was used, compliance with the advice offered was also low. However, if actually used, CDSSs could result in closer guideline adherence (improve investigating, prescribing and issuing of action plans) and could improve some clinical outcomes. The study at moderate risk of bias showed increased prescribing of inhaled steroids. CONCLUSIONS: The current generation of CDSSs is unlikely to result in improvements in outcomes for patients with asthma because they are rarely used and the advice is not followed. Future decision support systems need to align better with professional workflows so that pertinent and timely advice is easily accessible within the consultation.

The impact of telehealthcare on the quality and safety of care: a systematic overview.

BACKGROUND: Telehealthcare involves the use of information and communication technologies to deliver healthcare at a distance and to support patient self-management through remote monitoring and personalised feedback. It is timely to scrutinise the evidence regarding the benefits, risks and costs of telehealthcare. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Two reviewers searched for relevant systematic reviews published from January 1997 to November 2011 in: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, IndMed and PakMed. Reviewers undertook independent quality assessment of studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for systematic reviews. 1,782 review articles were identified, from which 80 systematic reviews were selected for inclusion. These covered a range of telehealthcare models involving both synchronous (live) and asynchronous (store-and-forward) interactions between provider and patients. Many studies showed no differences in outcomes between telehealthcare and usual care. Several reviews highlighted the large number of short-term (<12 months) feasibility studies with under 20 participants. Effects of telehealthcare on health service indicators were reported in several reviews, particularly reduced hospitalisations. The reported clinical effectiveness of telehealthcare interventions for patients with long-term conditions appeared to be greatest in those with more severe disease at high-risk of hospitalisation and death. The failure of many studies to adequately describe the intervention makes it difficult to disentangle the contributions of technological and human/organisational factors on the outcomes reported. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of telehealthcare remains sparse. Patient safety considerations were absent from the evaluative telehealthcare literature. CONCLUSIONS: Policymakers and planners need to be aware that investment in telehealthcare will not inevitably yield clinical or economic benefits. It is likely that the greatest gains will be achieved for patients at highest risk of serious outcomes. There is a need for longer-term studies in order to determine whether the benefits demonstrated in time limited trials are sustained.