Engaging patients and primary care providers in the design of novel opinion leader based interventions for acute asthma in the emergency department: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Multifaceted interventions driven by the needs of patients and providers can help move evidence into practice more rapidly. This study engaged both patients and primary care providers (PCPs) to help design novel opinion leader (OL)-based interventions for patients with acute asthma seen in emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: A mixed methods design was employed. In phase I, we invited convenience samples of patients with asthma presenting to the ED and PCPs to participate in a survey. Perceptions with respect to: a) an ideal OL-profile for asthma guidance; and b) content, style and delivery methods of OL-based interventions in acute asthma directed from the ED were collected. In phase II, we conducted focus groups to further explore preferences and expectations for such interventions with attention to barriers and facilitators for implementation. RESULTS: Overall, 54 patients completed the survey; 39% preferred receiving guidance from a respirologist, 44% during their ED visit and 56% through individual discussions. In addition, 55% expressed interest in having PCP follow-up within a week of ED discharge. A respirologist was identified as the ideal OL-profile by 59% of the 39 responding PCPs. All expressed interest in receiving notification of their patients' ED presentation, most within a week and including diagnosis and ED/post ED-treatment. Personalized, guideline-based, recommendations were considered to be the ideal content by the majority; 39% requested this guidance through a pamphlet faxed to their offices. In the focus groups, patients and PCPs recognized the importance of health professional liaisons in transitions in care; patient anxiety and PCP time constraints were identified as potential barriers for ED-educational information uptake and proper post-ED follow-up, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging patients and PCPs yielded actionable information to tailor OL-based multifaceted interventions for acute asthma in the ED. We identified potential facilitators for the implementation of such interventions (e.g., patient interaction with alternative health care professionals who could facilitate transitions in asthma care between the ED and the primary care setting), and for the provision of post discharge self-management education (e.g., consideration of the first week of ED discharge as a practical time frame for this intervention). Prioritization of identified barriers (e.g., lack of PCP involvement) could be addressed by the identification of potential early adopters in practice environments (e.g., clinicians with special interest in asthma).

Effectiveness of written action plans for acute asthma: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Self-management is an essential part of achieving asthma control and improving long-term outcomes. While guidelines recommend the provision of written asthma action plans (AAPs), few patients presenting to emergency departments (ED) have one. This systematic review examined if individualized written AAPs reduce relapses in adults following an ED visit for acute asthma. DATA SOURCES: Comprehensive searches of seven electronic databases and grey literature were conducted. STUDY SELECTIONS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of individualized written AAPs to reduce relapses after ED visits for acute asthma were included. Study quality was determined using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool; intervention fidelity was assessed. RESULTS: From 695 potentially relevant studies, three RCTs were included. The RoB was low in two studies and high in one study; description of intervention fidelity varied across studies. The provision of individualized written AAPs in adults following an ED visit for acute asthma did not reduce the risk of relapse after ED discharge (risk ratio [RR] = 0.66; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.36, 1.23; I2 = 40%). There was a 49% reduction in the risk of relapse after ED discharge when only studies with low RoB were pooled (RR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31, 0.83; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: This review did not provide conclusive evidence to support the consideration of individualized written AAPs for the reduction of relapses after an ED visit; however, the low frequency of events, small number of studies and samples, and their methodological quality might play an important role in this overall finding.

Emergency Department Use: Influence of Connection to a Family Physician on ED Use and Attempts to Avoid Presentation.

Some low-acuity emergency department (ED) presentations are potentially avoidable with improved primary care access. The majority of ED patients (74.4%) in this study had a family physician, but the frequency of visits varied substantially. The variable frequency of patients' visits to these providers calls into question the validity of linkage assumptions. Several sociodemographic factors were associated with having a family physician, including female sex, being married/common law, race (Caucasian), being employed over the previous 12 months and having received a flu shot in the past year. These factors need to be explored further.

Combined inhaled beta-agonist and anticholinergic agents for emergency management in adults with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled short-acting anticholinergics (SAAC) and short-acting beta2-agonists (SABA) are effective therapies for adult patients with acute asthma who present to the emergency department (ED). It is unclear, however, whether the combination of SAAC and SABA treatment is more effective in reducing hospitalisations compared to treatment with SABA alone. OBJECTIVES: To conduct an up-to-date systematic search and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of combined inhaled therapy (SAAC + SABA agents) vs. SABA alone to reduce hospitalisations in adult patients presenting to the ED with an exacerbation of asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, LILACS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global and evidence-based medicine (EBM) databases using controlled vocabulary, natural language terms, and a variety of specific and general terms for inhaled SAAC and SABA drugs. The search spanned from 1946 to July 2015. The Cochrane Airways Group provided search results from the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials which was most recently conducted in July 2016. An extensive search of the grey literature was completed to identify any other potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Included studies were randomised or controlled clinical trials comparing the effectiveness of combined inhaled therapy (SAAC and SABA) to SABA treatment alone to prevent hospitalisations in adults with acute asthma in the emergency department. Two independent review authors assessed studies for inclusion using pre-determined criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated individual and pooled statistics as risk ratios (RR) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model and reporting heterogeneity (I²). For continuous outcomes, we reported individual trial results using mean differences (MD) and pooled results as weighted mean differences (WMD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs using a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 studies that involved a total of 2724 enrolled participants. Most studies were rated at unclear or high risk of bias.Overall, participants receiving combination inhaled therapy were less likely to be hospitalised (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.87; participants = 2120; studies = 16; I² = 12%; moderate quality of evidence). An estimated 65 fewer patients per 1000 would require hospitalisation after receiving combination therapy (95% 30 to 95), compared to 231 per 1000 patients receiving SABA alone. Although combination inhaled therapy was more effective than SABA treatment alone in reducing hospitalisation in participants with severe asthma exacerbations, this was not found for participants with mild or moderate exacerbations (test for difference between subgroups P = 0.02).Participants receiving combination therapy were more likely to experience improved forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (MD 0.25 L, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.48; participants = 687; studies = 6; I² = 70%; low quality of evidence), peak expiratory flow (PEF) (MD 36.58 L/min, 95% CI 23.07 to 50.09; participants = 1056; studies = 12; I² = 25%; very low quality of evidence), increased percent change in PEF from baseline (MD 24.88, 95% CI 14.83 to 34.93; participants = 551; studies = 7; I² = 23%; moderate quality of evidence), and were less likely to return to the ED for additional care (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 1180; studies = 5; I² = 0%; moderate quality of evidence) than participants receiving SABA alone.Participants receiving combination inhaled therapy were more likely to experience adverse events than those treated with SABA agents alone (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.20; participants = 1392; studies = 11; I² = 14%; moderate quality of evidence). Among patients receiving combination therapy, 103 per 1000 were likely to report adverse events (95% 31 to 195 more) compared to 131 per 1000 patients receiving SABA alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, combination inhaled therapy with SAAC and SABA reduced hospitalisation and improved pulmonary function in adults presenting to the ED with acute asthma. In particular, combination inhaled therapy was more effective in preventing hospitalisation in adults with severe asthma exacerbations who are at increased risk of hospitalisation, compared to those with mild-moderate exacerbations, who were at a lower risk to be hospitalised. A single dose of combination therapy and multiple doses both showed reductions in the risk of hospitalisation among adults with acute asthma. However, adults receiving combination therapy were more likely to experience adverse events, such as tremor, agitation, and palpitations, compared to patients receiving SABA alone.

Low-acuity presentations to the emergency department in Canada: exploring the alternative attempts to avoid presentation.

OBJECTIVE: ED visits have been rising year on year worldwide. It has been suggested that some of these visits could be avoided if low-acuity patients had better primary care access. This study explored patients' efforts to avoid ED presentation and alternative care sought prior to presentation. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients presenting to three urban EDs in Edmonton, Canada, completed a questionnaire collecting demographics, actions attempted to avoid presentation and reasons for presentation. Survey data were cross-referenced to a minimal patient dataset containing ED and demographic information. RESULTS: A total of 1402 patients (66.5%) completed the survey. Although 89.3% of the patients felt that the ED was their best care option, the majority of patients (60.1%) sought alternative care or advice prior to presentation. Men, individuals who presented with injury only, and individuals with less than a high school education were all less likely to seek alternative care. Alternative care actions included visiting a physician (54.1%) or an alternative healthcare professional (eg, chiropractor, physiotherapist, etc; 21.2%), calling physician offices (47%) or the regional health information line (13%). Of those who called their physicians, the majority received advice to present to the ED (67.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Most low-acuity patients attempt to avoid ED presentation by seeking alternative care. This analysis identifies groups of individuals in the study region who are less likely to seek alternative care first and may benefit from targeted interventions/education. Other regions may wish to complete a similar profile to determine which patients are less likely to seek alternative care first.

Effectiveness of Educational Interventions to Increase Primary Care Follow-up for Adults Seen in the Emergency Department for Acute Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with asthma commonly present to emergency departments (ED) with exacerbations. Asthma guidelines recommend close follow-up with a primary care provider (PCP) after ED discharge; however, this linkage is often delayed or absent. The objective of this study was to assess whether ED-directed educational interventions improve office follow-up with PCPs after ED discharge for acute asthma. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in seven electronic databases (1946 to 2014). Randomized controlled clinical trials examining the effectiveness of educational interventions to increase office follow-up with a PCP were included. Study quality was determined using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; fidelity of the interventions was assessed using the Treatment Fidelity Assessment Grid. Using study data, risk ratios (RRs),and the number needed to treat for benefit (NNTB) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: From 427 potentially relevant studies, five (n = 825) were included. The overall risk of bias was unclear, and the description of intervention fidelity varied across the studies. Educational interventions targeting either patients or PCPs led to a greater likelihood of having primary care follow-up after ED discharge (RR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.31 to 1.87; I(2)  = 0%). The number needed to treat for benefit was six (95% CI = 4 to 11). No significant benefit was observed in reductions of relapses (RR = 1.3; 95% CI = 0.82 to 1.98; I(2)  = 23%) and admissions (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.24 to 1.06; I(2)  = 0%). Due to the small number of studies for each comparison, publication bias was not formally assessed. CONCLUSIONS: ED-directed educational interventions targeting either patients or providers increase the chance of having office follow-up visits with PCPs after asthma exacerbations. Their impact on health-related outcomes (e.g., relapse and admissions) remains unclear.