Compliance with the clinical guidelines for managing asthma by primary care physicians: An ambispective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the degree of compliance with the recommendations of the 2009 and 2015 versions of the Spanish guidelines for managing asthma (Guía Española para el Manejo del Asma [GEMA]) and the effect of this compliance on controlling the disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted an observational ambispective study between September 2015 and April 2016 in which 314 primary care physicians and 2864 patients participated. RESULTS: Using retrospective data, we found that 81 of the 314 physicians (25.8%; 95% CI 21.3-30.9) stated that they complied with the GEMA2009 recommendations. At the start of the study, 88 of the 314 physicians (28.0%; 95% CI 23.4-33.2) complied with the GEMA2015 recommendations. Poorly controlled asthma (OR, 0.19; 95% CI 0.13-0.28) and persistent severe asthma at the start of the study (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.12-0.34) were negatively associated with having well-controlled asthma by the end of the follow-up. In contrast, compliance with the GEMA2015 recommendations was positively associated with a greater likelihood that the patient would have well-controlled asthma by the end of the follow-up (OR, 1.70; 95% CI 1.40-2.06). CONCLUSIONS: Low compliance with the clinical guidelines for managing asthma is a common problem among primary care physicians. Compliance with these guidelines is associated with a better asthma control. Actions need to be taken to improve primary care physician compliance with the asthma management guidelines.

Seguimiento de las guías españolas para el manejo del asma por el médico de atención primaria: un estudio observacional ambispectivo / Compliance with the clinical guidelines for managing asthma by primary care physicians: An ambispective observational study

Objetivo Evaluar el grado de seguimiento de las recomendaciones de las versiones de la Guía española para el manejo del asma (GEMA 2009 y 2015) y su repercusión en el control de la enfermedad. Material y métodos Estudio observacional y ambispectivo realizado entre septiembre del 2015 y abril del 2016, en el que participaron 314 médicos de atención primaria y 2.864 pacientes. Resultados Utilizando datos retrospectivos, 81 de los 314 médicos (25,8% [IC del 95%, 21,3 a 30,9]) comunicaron seguir las recomendaciones de la GEMA 2009. Al inicio del estudio, 88 de los 314 médicos (28,0% [IC del 95%, 23,4 a 33,2]) seguían las recomendaciones de la GEMA 2015. El tener un asma mal controlada (OR 0,19, IC del 95%, 0,13 a 0,28) y presentar un asma persistente grave al inicio del estudio (OR 0,20, IC del 95%, 0,12 a 0,34) se asociaron negativamente con tener un asma bien controlada al final del seguimiento. Por el contrario, el seguimiento de las recomendaciones de la GEMA 2015 se asoció de manera positiva con una mayor posibilidad de que el paciente tuviera un asma bien controlada al final del periodo de seguimiento (OR 1,70, IC del 95%, 1,40 a 2,06). Conclusiones El escaso seguimiento de las guías clínicas para el manejo del asma constituye un problema común entre los médicos de atención primaria. Un seguimiento de estas guías se asocia con un control mejor del asma. Existe la necesidad de actuaciones que puedan mejorar el seguimiento por parte de los médicos de atención primaria de las guías para el manejo del asma (AU)

Objective To assess the degree of compliance with the recommendations of the 2009 and 2015 versions of the Spanish guidelines for managing asthma (Guía Española para el Manejo del Asma [GEMA]) and the effect of this compliance on controlling the disease. Material and methods We conducted an observational ambispective study between September 2015 and April 2016 in which 314 primary care physicians and 2864 patients participated. Results Using retrospective data, we found that 81 of the 314 physicians (25.8%; 95% CI 21.3–30.9) stated that they complied with the GEMA2009 recommendations. At the start of the study, 88 of the 314 physicians (28.0%; 95% CI 23.4–33.2) complied with the GEMA2015 recommendations. Poorly controlled asthma (OR, 0.19; 95% CI 0.13–0.28) and persistent severe asthma at the start of the study (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.12–0.34) were negatively associated with having well-controlled asthma by the end of the follow-up. In contrast, compliance with the GEMA2015 recommendations was positively associated with a greater likelihood that the patient would have well-controlled asthma by the end of the follow-up (OR, 1.70; 95% CI 1.40–2.06). Conclusions Low compliance with the clinical guidelines for managing asthma is a common problem among primary care physicians. Compliance with these guidelines is associated with better asthma control. Actions need to be taken to improve primary care physician compliance with the asthma management guidelines (AU)

Compliance with the clinical guidelines for managing asthma by primary care physicians: An ambispective observational study. / Seguimiento de las guías españolas para el manejo del asma por el médico de atención primaria: un estudio observacional ambispectivo.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the degree of compliance with the recommendations of the 2009 and 2015 versions of the Spanish guidelines for managing asthma (Guía Española para el Manejo del Asma [GEMA]) and the effect of this compliance on controlling the disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted an observational ambispective study between September 2015 and April 2016 in which 314 primary care physicians and 2864 patients participated. RESULTS: Using retrospective data, we found that 81 of the 314 physicians (25.8%; 95% CI 21.3-30.9) stated that they complied with the GEMA2009 recommendations. At the start of the study, 88 of the 314 physicians (28.0%; 95% CI 23.4-33.2) complied with the GEMA2015 recommendations. Poorly controlled asthma (OR, 0.19; 95% CI 0.13-0.28) and persistent severe asthma at the start of the study (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.12-0.34) were negatively associated with having well-controlled asthma by the end of the follow-up. In contrast, compliance with the GEMA2015 recommendations was positively associated with a greater likelihood that the patient would have well-controlled asthma by the end of the follow-up (OR, 1.70; 95% CI 1.40-2.06). CONCLUSIONS: Low compliance with the clinical guidelines for managing asthma is a common problem among primary care physicians. Compliance with these guidelines is associated with better asthma control. Actions need to be taken to improve primary care physician compliance with the asthma management guidelines.

Recursos disponibles para el manejo de la agudización de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica en España / Available resources for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations in Spain

Objetivo: Las agudizaciones de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (AEPOC) generan un elevado consumo de recursos. El presente estudio evalúa recursos asistenciales y organizativos disponibles para el manejo de las AEPOC en servicios de atención primaria (AP), neumología, medicina interna y urgencias españoles, y los compara con las recomendaciones vigentes. Material y métodos: Estudio observacional mediante encuestas telefónicas a médicos de AP, neumólogos, internistas y de urgencias. Resultados: Se entrevistaron 284 médicos. Según su opinión, los centros de AP tienen elevada disponibilidad de pulsioximetría (98,9%) y electrocardiografía (100,0%), y baja disponibilidad de radiología de tórax (19,1%) o analítica urgente (17,0%) en el mismo centro. El 76,1% de las salas de hospitalización disponen de equipos de monitorización de ventilación mecánica no invasiva (VMNI), aunque solo el 69,7% del personal de enfermería está adecuadamente formado para manejarlos. El 18,3% de hospitales públicos disponen de unidades de cuidados respiratorios intermedios (UCRI) frente al 41,7% de los privados. El 47,9% de médicos de urgencias recibieron formación de manejo de las AEPOC en el último año. Solo el 31,9% de centros de AP tienen protocolos específicos de derivación a atención especializada. Algo más del 35% de centros de AP y hospitales refieren no disponer de historia informatizada integrada con otros niveles asistenciales. Conclusiones: En líneas generales, los recursos disponibles son adecuados. Sin embargo, se detectan áreas de mejora como el inadecuado nivel de integración de la historia informatizada entre niveles asistenciales, baja dotación de UCRI en hospitales públicos o deficiencias en formación específica del manejo de la VMNI

Objective: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations (COPDE) lead to a high use of healthcare resources. This study assesses the healthcare and organisational resources of Spanish health care centres for the management of COPDE at different care levels (Primary Care (PC), Respiratory Diseases, Internal Medicine, and Emergency Departments), and compare with current recommendations. Material and methods: An observational study was carried out through telephone interviews to General Practitioners, Chest Diseases, Internal Medicine, and Emergency Department doctors. Results: A total of 284 doctors were interviewed. According to their responses, at PC centres there is a high availability of pulse oximetry (98.9%) and electrocardiograph (100%), and a low availability of Chest X-Ray (19.1%), or urgent laboratory tests (17.0%) in sites. In hospital wards, non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) availability was 76.1%, with only a 69.7% of nursing staff properly trained in its use. Respiratory intermediate care units (RICUs) were available in 18.3% of public hospitals versus 41.7% of private hospitals. Specific training for COPDE management was received by 47.9% of Emergency Department doctors in the previous year. Only 31.9% of PC centres had specific protocols for referring patients to specialists. More than 35% of PC centres and hospitals do not have their electronic medical records integrated with other healthcare levels. Conclusions: In general terms, there are sufficient resources available in Spanish healthcare centres. However, several areas of improvement were identified, such as an insufficient level of electronic medical record integration between healthcare levels, limited implementation of RICUs in public hospitals, and deficiencies related to specific training in NIV management

[Available resources for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations in Spain]. / Recursos disponibles para el manejo de la agudización de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica en España.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations (COPDE) lead to a high use of healthcare resources. This study assesses the healthcare and organisational resources of Spanish health care centres for the management of COPDE at different care levels (Primary Care (PC), Respiratory Diseases, Internal Medicine, and Emergency Departments), and compare with current recommendations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An observational study was carried out through telephone interviews to General Practitioners, Chest Diseases, Internal Medicine, and Emergency Department doctors. RESULTS: A total of 284 doctors were interviewed. According to their responses, at PC centres there is a high availability of pulse oximetry (98.9%) and electrocardiograph (100%), and a low availability of Chest X-Ray (19.1%), or urgent laboratory tests (17.0%) in sites. In hospital wards, non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) availability was 76.1%, with only a 69.7% of nursing staff properly trained in its use. Respiratory intermediate care units (RICUs) were available in 18.3% of public hospitals versus 41.7% of private hospitals. Specific training for COPDE management was received by 47.9% of Emergency Department doctors in the previous year. Only 31.9% of PC centres had specific protocols for referring patients to specialists. More than 35% of PC centres and hospitals do not have their electronic medical records integrated with other healthcare levels. CONCLUSIONS: In general terms, there are sufficient resources available in Spanish healthcare centres. However, several areas of improvement were identified, such as an insufficient level of electronic medical record integration between healthcare levels, limited implementation of RICUs in public hospitals, and deficiencies related to specific training in NIV management.

Quality indicators of asthma care derived from the Spanish Guidelines for Asthma Management (GEMA 4.0): a multidisciplinary team report

No dispoinble

No disponible

Frequency and characteristics of different clinical phenotypes of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

SETTING: Clinical phenotypes of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) identify patients with common characteristics. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the distribution of four different COPD phenotypes: non-exacerbators, patients with asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS), exacerbators with chronic bronchitis and those without, we analysed the impact of COPD on quality of life (HRQoL), and on anxiety and depression in these phenotypes. DESIGN: Observational, multicentre study conducted among 3125 COPD patients recruited from out-patient clinics in Barcelona, Spain. Phenotyping was performed based on the clinical information available. The COPD Assessment Test and EuroQoL-5 Dimensions questionnaire were used to evaluate HRQoL; patient mood was evaluated using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). RESULTS: The distribution of phenotypes was as follows: 60.6% non-exacerbators, 15.9% ACOS patients, 19.3% exacerbators with chronic bronchitis and 4.3% exacerbators without chronic bronchitis. Non-exacerbators had milder COPD, whereas exacerbators presented with the most severe disease, with little difference between those with and those without chronic bronchitis. ACOS patients were more frequently female with better lung function, but more impaired HRQoL and greater anxiety and depression, than non-exacerbators. CONCLUSIONS: Almost two thirds of COPD patients are non-exacerbators, and 15.9% have ACOS. Different phenotypes showed different demographic and clinical characteristics as well as impact on HRQoL and mood.

Severe chronic allergic (and related) diseases: a uniform approach--a MeDALL--GA2LEN--ARIA position paper.

Concepts of disease severity, activity, control and responsiveness to treatment are linked but different. Severity refers to the loss of function of the organs induced by the disease process or to the occurrence of severe acute exacerbations. Severity may vary over time and needs regular follow-up. Control is the degree to which therapy goals are currently met. These concepts have evolved over time for asthma in guidelines, task forces or consensus meetings. The aim of this paper is to generalize the approach of the uniform definition of severe asthma presented to WHO for chronic allergic and associated diseases (rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, chronic urticaria and atopic dermatitis) in order to have a uniform definition of severity, control and risk, usable in most situations. It is based on the appropriate diagnosis, availability and accessibility of treatments, treatment responsiveness and associated factors such as comorbidities and risk factors. This uniform definition will allow a better definition of the phenotypes of severe allergic (and related) diseases for clinical practice, research (including epidemiology), public health purposes, education and the discovery of novel therapies.

Medidor de Peak-flow: técnica de manejo y utilidad en Atención Primaria / Peak-flow meter: technique and utilities in Primary Health Care

La medida del flujo espiratorio máximo (FEM) - peak expiratory flow (PEF) en terminología anglosajona - mediante medidores portátiles, constituye una de las herramientas más útiles y accesibles para la valoración de la función pulmonar de asmáticos en las consultas de Atención Primaria.Tras definir el FEM y revisar las características de los medidores y las ventajas e inconvenientes de esta técnica en relación con la espirometría forzada, se discuten posteriormente las indicaciones para su uso con fines diagnósticos, de control evolutivo a corto y largo plazo y para crisis asmáticas (AU)