Development and implementation of the lung volume reduction pulmonary rehabilitation tool to identify eligibility for lung volume reduction in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease during pulmonary rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Completion of pulmonary rehabilitation is recognised in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines as a key opportunity to consider systematically whether a respiratory review to assess potential suitability for a lung volume reduction (LVR) procedure might be appropriate. We describe the development of a simple decision-support tool (the LVR-PR tool) to aid clinicians working in pulmonary rehabilitation, to operationalise this process. METHODS: We took an iterative mixed methods approach, which was partnership-based and involved an initial consensus survey, focus groups and an observational study cohort at multiple pulmonary rehabilitation centres. RESULTS: Diagnosis (97%), exercise capacity (84%), breathlessness (78%) and co-morbidities (76%) were acknowledged to be essential items for assessing basic LVR eligibility. Collating prior investigations and assessing patient understanding were considered useful but not essential. Clinician concerns included; streamlining the tool; access to clinical information and investigations; and care needed around introducing LVR therapies to patients in a PR setting. Access to clearer information about LVR procedures, the clinician's role in considering eligibility and how educational resources should be delivered were identified as important themes from patient group discussions. The LVR-PR tool was considered to be feasible and valid for implementation in a variety of PR services across the UK subject to the provision of appropriate health professional training. Clinicians working in specialist LVR centres across the UK who were not otherwise involved in the development process confirmed the tool's validity using the content validity index (CVI). INTERPRETATION: The LVR-PR tool appears to be an acceptable tool that can be feasibly implemented in PR services subject to good quality educational resources for both patients and healthcare professionals.

British Thoracic Society guidelines for home oxygen use in adults.

The British Thoracic Society (BTS) Home Oxygen Guideline provides detailed evidence-based guidance for the use of home oxygen for patients out of hospital. Although the majority of evidence comes from the use of oxygen in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the scope of the guidance includes patients with a variety of long-term respiratory illnesses and other groups in whom oxygen is currently ordered, such as those with cardiac failure, cancer and end-stage cardiorespiratory disease, terminal illness or cluster headache. It explores the evidence base for the use of different modalities of oxygen therapy and patient-related outcomes such as mortality, symptoms and quality of life. The guideline also makes recommendations for assessment and follow-up protocols, and risk assessments, particularly in the clinically challenging area of home oxygen users who smoke. The guideline development group is aware of the potential for confusion sometimes caused by the current nomenclature for different types of home oxygen, and rather than renaming them, has adopted the approach of clarifying those definitions, and in particular emphasising what is meant by long-term oxygen therapy and palliative oxygen therapy. The home oxygen guideline provides expert consensus opinion in areas where clinical evidence is lacking, and seeks to deliver improved prescribing practice, leading to improved compliance and improved patient outcomes, with consequent increased value to the health service.

Pulmonary rehabilitation and sleep quality: a before and after controlled study of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Poor sleep quality is common in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It is associated with poor quality of life. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) improves quality of life, exercise capacity, and anxiety and depression. Its effect on sleep quality is uncertain. AIM: To determine whether PR improves sleep quality in COPD. METHODS: A prospective controlled 'before and after' study of sleep quality in COPD patients attending a community PR programme was conducted. Sleep quality was measured using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Lung function, disease-specific quality of life (COPD assessment test--CAT), exercise capacity (incremental shuttle walk test--ISWT), and anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale--HADS) were measured. Change in sleep quality was compared with a COPD control group. RESULTS: Twenty-eight participants completed PR. The control group comprised 24 patients. Prevalence of poor sleep quality (PSQI ≥5) was 78%. There were no differences between observation and control groups in sleep quality, age or severity. Quality of life was strongly correlated with quality of sleep (r=0.64, P<0.001). PR improved the quality of life (CAT change 3.0; 95% CI, 0.7-5.3), exercise capacity (ISWT change (metres) 81.0; 15.3-146.6), anxiety (HADS score ≥8: change 2.33; 0.45-4.22), and depression (HADS score ≥8: change 2.90; 1.92-3.88). PR did not improve sleep quality (PSQI mean change 0.79; -0.35 to 1.93). CONCLUSIONS: PR did not improve sleep quality in COPD despite improving quality of life, exercise capacity, anxiety and depression. New strategies, independent of PR, are required to improve sleep quality in COPD.

Effectiveness, attendance, and completion of an integrated, system-wide pulmonary rehabilitation service for COPD: prospective observational study.

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is one of the most effective treatments for COPD but not widely available. Uptake is poor and completion rates are low. In this integrated PR service we report on effectiveness, attendance, and completion of twice weekly rolling recruitment and once weekly cohort recruitment programmes in two hospital and five community PR sites. The hospital and two of the community programmes were 'rolling' recruitment twice weekly for 8 weeks. Three community programmes ran in once weekly cohorts for 8 weeks. Predictors of attendance, completion and effectiveness were sought. 1114 eligible COPD patients were referred. 812 (73%) attended assessment, 656 (59%) started and 441 (40%) completed. Significant improvements were seen in incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) (mean 68.3 m; 95%CI 59.3-77.4), Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire self-report dyspnoea scale (CRQ-SR) (0.94; 0.80-1.07), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety (0.9; 0.5-1.2) and depression (1.1; 0.8-1.4) components, exceeding the minimum clinically important difference for ISWT and CRQ-SR. Twice weekly compared with once weekly programmes showed similar improvement. Patients were less likely to complete if they were deprived (4(th) quintile of deprivation 0.56; 0.33-0.94, 5(th) quintile 0.57; 0.34-0.85), reported MRC dyspnoea scale 4 (0.61; 0.37-0.97) or 5 (0.39; 0.16-0.93), or had been referred by their general practitioner (0.42; 0.24-0.74) (pseudo R(2) 0.103). PR is effective for COPD in real-world practice achieving results comparable to trials. Low rates of attendance and completion of PR were not explained by demographic characteristics, disease severity, psychological morbidity and source of referral despite the large number of participants.