Pulmonary Rehabilitation as a Mechanism to Reduce Hospitalizations for Acute Exacerbations of COPD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) has a significant impact on health-care use, including physician visits and hospitalizations. Previous studies and reviews have shown that pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has many benefits, but the effect on hospitalizations for AECOPD is inconclusive. METHODS: A literature search was carried out to find studies that might help determine, using a meta-analysis, the impact of PR on AECOPD, defined as unscheduled or emergency hospitalizations and ED visits. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting hospitalizations for AECOPD as an outcome were included. Meta-analyses compared hospitalization rates between eligible PR recipients and nonrecipients before and after rehabilitation. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Results from 10 RCTs showed that the control groups had a higher overall rate of hospitalization than did the PR groups (control groups: 0.97 hospitalizations/patient-year; 95% CI, 0.67-1.40; PR groups: 0.62 hospitalizations/patient-year; 95% CI, 0.33-1.16). Five studies compared admission numbers in the 12 months before and after rehabilitation, finding a significantly higher admission rate before compared with after (before: 1.24 hospitalizations/patient-year; 95% CI, 0.66-2.34; after: 0.47 hospitalizations/patient-year; 95% CI, 0.28-0.79). The pooled result of three cohort studies found that the reference group had a lower admission rate compared with the PR group (0.18 hospitalizations/patient-year; 95% CI, 0.11-0.32 for reference group vs 0.28 hospitalizations/patient-year; 95% CI, 0.25-0.32 for the PR group). CONCLUSIONS: Although results from RCTs suggested that PR reduces subsequent admissions, pooled results from the cohort studies did not, likely reflecting the heterogeneous nature of individuals included in observational research and the varying standard of PR programs.

Online data on opening hours of general practices in England: a comparison with telephone survey data.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Choices website (www.nhs.uk) provides data on the opening hours of general practices in England. If the data are accurate, they could be used to examine the benefits of extended hours. AIM: To determine whether online data on the opening times of general practices in England are accurate regarding the number of hours in which GPs provide face-to-face consultations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional comparison of data from NHS Choices and telephone survey data reported by general practice staff, for a nationally representative sample of 320 general practices (December 2013 to September 2014). METHOD: GP face-to-face consultation times were collected by telephone for each sampled practice for each day of the week. NHS Choices data on surgery times were available online. Analysis was based on differences in the number of surgery hours (accounting for breaks) and the times of the first and last consultations of the day only between the two data sources. RESULTS: The NHS Choices data recorded 8.8 more hours per week than the survey data on average (40.1 versus 31.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.4 to 10.3). This was largely accounted for by differences in the recording of breaks between sessions. The data were more similar when only the first and last consultation times were considered (mean difference = 1.6 hours; 95% CI = 0.9 to 2.3). CONCLUSION: NHS Choices data do not accurately measure the number of hours in which GPs provide face-to-face consultations. They better record the hours between the first and last consultations of the day.

Access to primary care and visits to emergency departments in England: a cross-sectional, population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The number of visits to hospital emergency departments (EDs) in England has increased by 20% since 2007-08, placing unsustainable pressure on the National Health Service (NHS). Some patients attend EDs because they are unable to access primary care services. This study examined the association between access to primary care and ED visits in England. METHODS: A cross-sectional, population-based analysis of patients registered with 7,856 general practices in England was conducted, for the time period April 2010 to March 2011. The outcome measure was the number of self-referred discharged ED visits by the registered population of a general practice. The predictor variables were measures of patient-reported access to general practice services; these were entered into a negative binomial regression model with variables to control for the characteristics of patient populations, supply of general practitioners and travel times to health services. MAIN RESULT AND CONCLUSION: General practices providing more timely access to primary care had fewer self-referred discharged ED visits per registered patient (for the most accessible quintile of practices, RR = 0.898; P<0.001). Policy makers should consider improving timely access to primary care when developing plans to reduce ED utilisation.

Breathlessness and skeletal muscle weakness in patients undergoing lung health screening in primary care.

Earlier diagnosis of COPD is a major public health challenge as symptoms may be attributed to the normal consequences of aging. The optimum strategy for identifying patients with COPD remains to be determined. People aged 35 and over (n = 1896) on a GP practice register were randomised to either invitation or an opportunistic lung health check which included spirometry, quadriceps strength and MRC dyspnoea score. Then, 101 participants subsequently completed the General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire. A total of 335 attended over a 15-week period; 156 were in the invitation group and 179 from the opportunist group. In 25 persons, spirometry was unsatisfactory or contraindicated. Spirometry was normal in 204(65.8%) and restrictive in 36(11.6%). 70(22.6%) had airflow obstruction, corresponding to Global Initiative for Chronic Lung Disease (GOLD) stages I-IV in 18(5.8%), 35(11.3%), 14(4.5%) and 3(1.0%), respectively. The opportunist group were significantly more likely to have airflow obstruction 30.1% vs 14.3% (p = 0.001). Breathlessness was reported commonly (40.5%) and quadriceps strength correlated significantly with MRC dyspnoea score independent of age, sex, pack-years smoked, fat-free mass and FEV(1) percent predicted. This relationship was also present in the subgroup of healthy participants (n = 143). 51.5% of participants screened were classified as "inactive" and this group were weaker and more breathless than those who were more active. Airflow obstruction was more common in those screened opportunistically. Breathlessness and inactivity are common in patients taking part in spirometry screening. Breathlessness is significantly associated with leg strength independent of spirometry and should be amenable to interventions to increase physical activity.

Defining primary care sensitive conditions: a necessity for effective primary care delivery?

Primary care is a major component of England's National Health Service (NHS), responsible for approximately 300 million consultations per year with GPs in England, which represents 70-90% of all patient contacts with the NHS. In addition to providing healthcare to the registered population, GPs are charged with coordination and gatekeeping of access to services provided by secondary care, tertiary care and other allied healthcare providers. As GPs will be assuming a key role in commissioning health services in England, there is a clear opportunity to re-model care delivery to maximize outcomes, cost efficiency and patient access by focusing on diseases that are most amenable to management in primary care. It is essential that there is evidence to inform what conditions are most sensitive to management in primary care - commonly referred to as primary care sensitive conditions or ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Such definitions would aid resource planning, drafting of local management protocols and simplification of the interface between primary and secondary care for a number of chronic conditions. Indeed, inappropriate utilization of secondary care resources is likely to represent a significant opportunity cost to healthcare providers and may be less desirable for patients.

Ethnic inequalities in the treatment and outcome of diabetes in three English Primary Care Trusts.

BACKGROUND: Although the prevalence of diabetes is three to five times higher in UK South Asians than Whites, there are no reports of the extent of ethnicity recording in routine general practice, and few population-based published studies of the association between ethnicity and quality of diabetes care and outcomes. We aimed to determine the association between ethnicity and healthcare factors in an English population. METHODS: Data was obtained in 2002 on all 21,343 diabetic patients registered in 99% of all computerised general practitioner (GP) practices in three NW London Primary Care Trusts (PCTs), covering a total registered population of 720,000. Previously practices had been provided with training, data entry support and feedback. Treatment and outcome measures included drug treatment and blood pressure (BP), total cholesterol and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels. RESULTS: Seventy per cent of diabetic patients had a valid ethnicity code. In the relatively older White population, we expected a smaller proportion with a normal BP, but BP differences between the groups were small and suggested poorer control in non-White ethnic groups. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups in the proportions of insulin-treated patients, with a smaller proportion of South Asians - 4.7% compared to 7.1% of Whites - receiving insulin, although the proportion with a satisfactory HbA1c was smaller- 25.6% compared to 37.9%. CONCLUSION: Recording the ethnicity of existing primary care patients is feasible, beginning with patients with established diseases such as diabetes. We have shown that the lower proportion of South Asian patients with good diabetes control, and who are receiving insulin, is at least partly due to poorer standards of care in South Asians, although biological and cultural factors could also contribute. This study highlights the need to capture ethnicity data in clinical trials and in routine care, to specifically investigate the reasons for these ethnic differences, and to consider more intensive management of diabetes and education about the disease in South Asian patients.