A realist evaluation case study of the implementation of advanced nurse practitioner roles in primary care in Scotland.

AIM: To evaluate Advanced Nurse Practitioner (ANP) role implementation in primary care across Scotland in contributing to primary care transformation, and establish what works, for whom, why and in what context. DESIGN: A realist evaluation using multiple case studies. METHODS: Two phases, conducted March 2017 to May 2018: (1) multiple case studies of ANP implementation in 15 health boards across Scotland, deductive thematic analysis of interviews, documentary analysis; (2) in-depth case studies of five health boards, framework analysis of interviews and focus groups. RESULTS: Sixty-eight informants were interviewed, and 72 documents were reviewed across both phases. ANP roles involved substitution for elements of the GP role for minor illness and injuries, across all ages. In rural areas ANPs undertook multiple nursing roles, were more autonomous and managed greater complexity. Mechanisms that facilitated implementation included: the national ANP definition; GP, primary care team and public engagement; funding for ANP education; and experienced GP supervisors. Contexts that affected mechanisms were national and local leadership; remote, rural and island communities; and workload challenges. Small-scale evaluations indicated that ANPs: make appropriate decisions; improve patient access and experience. CONCLUSIONS: At the time of the evaluation, the implementation of ANP roles in primary care in Scotland was in early stages. Capacity to train ANPs in a service already under pressure was challenging. Shifting elements of GPs workload to ANPs freed up GPs but did little to transform primary care. Local evaluations provided some evidence that ANPs were delivering high-quality primary care services and enhanced primary care services to nursing homes or home visits. IMPACT: ANP roles can be implemented with greater success and have more potential to transform primary care when the mechanisms include leadership at all levels, ANP roles that value advanced nursing knowledge, and appropriate education programmes delivered in the context of multidisciplinary collaboration.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the advanced nurse practitioner role in primary care settings: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Workload and workforce issues in primary care are key drivers for the growing international trend to expand nursing roles. Advanced nurse practitioners are increasingly being appointed to take on activities and roles traditionally carried out by doctors. Successful implementation of any new role within multidisciplinary teams is complex and time-consuming, therefore it is important to understand the factors that may hinder or support implementation of the advanced nurse practitioner role in primary care settings. OBJECTIVES: To identify, appraise and synthesise the barriers and facilitators that impact implementation of advanced practitioner roles in primary care settings. METHODS: A scoping review conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) framework and reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR. Eight databases (Cochrane Library, Health Business Elite, Kings Fund Library, HMIC, Medline, CINAHL, SCOPUS and Web of Science) were searched to identify studies published in English between 2002 and 2017. Study selection and methodological assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. A pre-piloted extraction form was used to extract the following data: study characteristics, context, participants and information describing the advanced nurse practitioner role. Deductive coding for barriers and facilitators was undertaken using a modified Yorkshire Contributory Framework. We used inductive coding for barriers or facilitators that could not be classified using pre-defined codes. Disagreements were addressed through discussion. Descriptive data was tabulated within evidence tables, and key findings for barriers and facilitators were brought together within a narrative synthesis based on the volume of evidence. FINDINGS: Systematic searching identified 5976 potential records, 2852 abstracts were screened, and 122 full texts were retrieved. Fifty-four studies (reported across 76 publications) met the selection criteria. Half of the studies (n = 27) were conducted in North America (n = 27), and 25/54 employed a qualitative design. The advanced nurse practitioner role was diverse, working across the lifespan and with different patient groups. However, there was little agreement about the level of autonomy, or what constituted everyday activities. Team factors were the most frequently reported barrier and facilitator. Individual factors, lines of responsibility and 'other' factors (i.e., funding), were also frequently reported barriers. Facilitators included individual factors, supervision and leadership and 'other' factors (i.e., funding, planning for role integration). CONCLUSION: Building collaborative relationships with other healthcare professionals and negotiating the role are critical to the success of the implementation of the advanced nurse practitioner role. Team consensus about the role and how it integrates into the wider team is also essential.

A theory-informed approach to developing visually mediated interventions to change behaviour using an asthma and physical activity intervention exemplar.

BACKGROUND: Visualisation techniques are used in a range of healthcare interventions. However, these frequently lack a coherent rationale or clear theoretical basis. This lack of definition and explicit targeting of the underlying mechanisms may impede the success of and evaluation of the intervention. We describe the theoretical development, deployment, and pilot evaluation, of a complex visually mediated behavioural intervention. The exemplar intervention focused on increasing physical activity among young people with asthma. We employed an explicit five-stage development model, which was actively supported by a consultative user group. The developmental stages involved establishing the theoretical basis, establishing a narrative structure, visual rendering, checking interpretation, and pilot testing. We conducted in-depth interviews and focus groups during early development and checking, followed by an online experiment for pilot testing. A total of 91 individuals, including young people with asthma, parents, teachers, and health professionals, were involved in development and testing. RESULTS: Our final intervention consisted of two components: (1) an interactive 3D computer animation to create intentions and (2) an action plan and volitional help sheet to promote the translation of intentions to behaviour. Theory was mediated throughout by visual and audio forms. The intervention was regarded as highly acceptable, engaging, and meaningful by all stakeholders. The perceived impact on asthma understanding and intentions was reported positively, with most individuals saying that the 3D computer animation had either clarified a range of issues or made them more real. Our five-stage model underpinned by extensive consultation worked well and is presented as a framework to support explicit decision-making for others developing theory informed visually mediated interventions. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated the ability to develop theory-based visually mediated behavioural interventions. However, attention needs to be paid to the potential ambiguity associated with images and thus the concept of visual literacy among patients. Our revised model may be helpful as a guide to aid development, acceptability, and ultimately effectiveness.

Achieving Good Outcomes for Asthma Living (GOAL): mixed methods feasibility and pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a practical intervention for eliciting, setting and achieving goals for adults with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Despite being a core component of self-management, goal setting is rarely used in routine care. We piloted a primary care, nurse-led intervention called Achieving Good Outcomes for Asthma Living (GOAL) for adults with asthma. Patients were invited to identify and prioritise their goals in preparation for discussing and negotiating an action/coping plan with the nurse at a routine asthma review. METHODS: The 18-month mixed methods feasibility cluster pilot trial stratified and then randomised practices to deliver usual care (UC) or a goal-setting intervention (GOAL). Practice asthma nurses and adult patients with active asthma were invited to participate. The primary outcome was asthma-specific quality of life. Semi-structured interviews with a purposive patient sample (n = 14) and 10 participating nurses explored GOAL perception. The constructs of normalisation process theory (NPT) were used to analyse and interpret data. RESULTS: Ten practices participated (five in each arm), exceeding our target of eight. However, only 48 patients (target 80) were recruited (18 in GOAL practices). At 6 months post-intervention, the difference in mean asthma-related quality of life (mAQLQ) between intervention and control was 0.1 (GOAL 6.20: SD 0.76 (CI 5.76-6.65) versus UC 6.1: SD 0.81 (CI 5.63-6.57)), less than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.5. However, change from baseline was stronger in the intervention group: at 6 months the change in the emotions sub-score was 0.8 for intervention versus 0.2 for control. Costs were higher in the intervention group by £22.17. Routine review with goal setting was considered more holistic, enhancing rapport and enabling patients to become active rather than passive participants in healthcare. However, time was a major barrier for nurses, who admitted to screening out patient goals they believed were unrelated to asthma. CONCLUSIONS: The difference in AQLQ score from baseline is larger in the intervention arm than the control, indicating the intervention may have impact if appropriately strengthened. The GOAL intervention changed the review dynamic and was well received by patients, but necessitated additional time, which was problematic in the confines of the traditional nurse appointment. Modification to recruitment methods and further development of the intervention are needed before proceeding to a definitive cluster randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18912042 . Registered on 26 June 2012.

The 'vicious cycle' of personalised asthma action plan implementation in primary care: a qualitative study of patients and health professionals' views.

BACKGROUND: Personal asthma action plans (PAAPs) have been guideline recommended for years, but consistently under-issued by health professionals and under-utilised by patients. Previous studies have investigated sub-optimal PAAP implementation but more insight is needed into barriers to their use from the perspective of professionals, patients and primary care teams. METHODS: A maximum variation sample of professional and patient participants were recruited from five demographically diverse general practices and another group of primary care professionals in one Scottish region. Interviews were digitally recorded and data thematically analysed using NVivo. RESULTS: Twenty-nine semi-structured interviews were conducted (11 adults with asthma, seven general practitioners, ten practice nurses, one hospital respiratory nurse). Three over-arching themes emerged: 1) patients generally do not value PAAPs, 2) professionals do not fully value PAAPs and, 3) multiple barriers reduce the value of PAAPs in primary care. Six patients had a PAAP but these were outdated, not reflecting their needs and not used. Patients reported not wanting or needing PAAPs, yet identified circumstances when these could be useful. Fifteen professionals had selectively issued PAAPs with eight having reviewed one. Many professionals did not value PAAPs as they did not see patients using these and lacked awareness of times when patients could have benefited from one. Multi-level compounding barriers emerged. Individual barriers included poor patient awareness and professionals not reinforcing PAAP use. Organisational barriers included professionals having difficulty accessing PAAP templates and fragmented processes including patients not being asked to bring PAAPs to their asthma appointments. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care PAAP implementation is in a vicious cycle. Professionals infrequently review/update PAAPs with patients; patients with out-dated PAAPs do not value or use these; professionals observing patients' lack of interest in PAAPs do not discuss these. Patients observing this do not refer to their plans and perceive them to be of little value in asthma self-management. Twenty-five years after PAAPs were first recommended, primary care practices are still not ready to support their implementation. Breaking this vicious cycle to create a healthcare context more conducive to PAAP implementation requires a whole systems approach with multi-faceted interventions addressing patient, professional and organisational barriers.

A woman with asthma: a whole systems approach to supporting self-management.

A 35-year-old lady attends for review of her asthma following an acute exacerbation. There is an extensive evidence base for supported self-management for people living with asthma, and international and national guidelines emphasise the importance of providing a written asthma action plan. Effective implementation of this recommendation for the lady in this case study is considered from the perspective of a patient, healthcare professional, and the organisation. The patient emphasises the importance of developing a partnership based on honesty and trust, the need for adherence to monitoring and regular treatment, and involvement of family support. The professional considers the provision of asthma self-management in the context of a structured review, with a focus on a self-management discussion which elicits the patient's goals and preferences. The organisation has a crucial role in promoting, enabling and providing resources to support professionals to provide self-management. The patient's asthma control was assessed and management optimised in two structured reviews. Her goal was to avoid disruption to her work and her personalised action plan focused on achieving that goal.

Goal-setting intervention in patients with active asthma: protocol for a pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Supporting self-management behaviours is recommended guidance for people with asthma. Preliminary work suggests that a brief, intensive, patient-centred intervention may be successful in supporting people with asthma to participate in life roles and activities they value. We seek to assess the feasibility of undertaking a cluster-randomised controlled trial (cRCT) of a brief, goal-setting intervention delivered in the context of an asthma review consultation. METHODS/DESIGN: A two armed, single-blinded, multi-centre, cluster-randomised controlled feasibility trial will be conducted in UK primary care. Randomisation will take place at the practice level. We aim to recruit a total of 80 primary care patients with active asthma from at least eight practices across two health boards in Scotland (10 patients per practice resulting in ~40 in each arm). Patients in the intervention arm will be asked to complete a novel goal-setting tool immediately prior to an asthma review consultation. This will be used to underpin a focussed discussion about their goals during the asthma review. A tailored management plan will then be negotiated to facilitate achieving their prioritised goals. Patients in the control arm will receive a usual care guideline-based review of asthma. Data on quality of life, asthma control and patient confidence will be collected from both arms at baseline and 3 and 6 months post-intervention. Data on health services resource use will be collected from all patient records 6 months pre- and post-intervention. Semi-structured interviews will be carried out with healthcare staff and a purposive sample of patients to elicit their views and experiences of the trial. The outcomes of interest in this feasibility trial are the ability to recruit patients and healthcare staff, the optimal method of delivering the intervention within routine clinical practice, and acceptability and perceived utility of the intervention among patients and staff. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18912042.

Developing novel evidence-based interventions to promote asthma action plan use: a cross-study synthesis of evidence from randomised controlled trials and qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Long-standing randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence indicates that asthma action plans can improve patient outcomes. Internationally, however, these plans are seldom issued by professionals or used by patients/carers. To understand how the benefits of such plans might be realised clinically, we previously investigated barriers and facilitators to their implementation in a systematic review of relevant RCTs and synthesised qualitative studies exploring professional and patient/carer views. Our final step was to integrate these two separate studies. METHODS: First, a theoretical model of action plan implementation was proposed, derived from our synthesis of 19 qualitative studies, identifying elements which, if incorporated into future interventions, could promote their use. Second, 14 RCTs included in the quantitative synthesis were re-analysed to assess the extent to which these elements were present within their interventions (that is, 'strong', 'weak' or 'no' presence) and with what effect. Matrices charted each element's presence and strength, facilitating analysis of element presence and action plan implementation. RESULTS: Four elements (professional education, patient/carer education, (patient/carer and professional) partnership working and communication) were identified in our model as likely to promote asthma plan use. Thirteen interventions reporting increased action plan implementation contained all four elements, with two or more strongly present. One intervention reporting no effect on action plan implementation contained only weakly present elements. Intervention effectiveness was reported using a narrow range of criteria which did not fully reflect the four elements. For example, no study assessed whether jointly developed action plans increased use. Whilst important from the professional and patient/carer perspectives, the integral role of these elements in intervention delivery and their effect on study outcomes was under-acknowledged in these RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel approach provides an evidence-base for future action plan interventions. Such interventions need to ensure all elements in our implementation model (patient/carer and professional education to support development of effective partnership working and communication) are strongly present within them and a wider range of criteria better reflecting the realities of clinical practice and living with asthma are used to measure their effectiveness. We now intend to test such a complex intervention using a cluster trial design.

Clinical implications of the Royal College of Physicians three questions in routine asthma care: a real-life validation study.

BACKGROUND: Annual recording of the Royal College of Physicians three questions (RCP3Q) morbidity score is rewarded within the UK 'pay-for-performance' Quality and Outcomes Framework. AIMS: To investigate the performance of the RCP3Qs for assessing control in real-life practice compared with the validated Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) administered by self-completed questionnaire. METHODS: We compared the RCP3Q score extracted from a patient's computerised medical record with the ACQ self-completed after the consultation. The anonymous data were paired by practice, age, sex, and dates of completion. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the RCP3Q scale compared with the threshold for good/poor asthma control (ACQ ≥1). RESULTS: Of 291 ACQ questionnaires returned from 12 participating practices, 129 could be paired with complete RCP3Q data. Twenty-five of 27 patients who scored zero on the RCP3Q were well controlled (ACQ <1). An RCP3Q score ≥1 predicted inadequate control (ACQ ≥1) with a sensitivity of 0.96 and specificity of 0.34. Comparable values for RCP3Q≥2 were sensitivity 0.50 and specificity 0.94. The intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.13 indicated substantial variability between practices. Exacerbations and use of reliever inhalers were moderately correlated with ACQ (Spearman's rho 0.3 and 0.35) and may reflect different aspects of control. CONCLUSIONS: In routine practice, an RCP3Q score of zero indicates good asthma control and a score of 2 or 3 indicates poor control. An RCP3Q score of 1 has good sensitivity but poor specificity for suboptimal control and should provoke further enquiry and consideration of other aspects of control such as exacerbations and use of reliever inhalers.

Patient, practice and organisational influences on asthma control: observational data from a national study on primary care in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Achieving asthma control is central to optimising patient quality of life and clinical outcome. Contemporary models of chronic disease management across a variety of countries point to the importance of micro, meso and macro level influences on patient care and outcome. However, asthma outcomes research has almost invariably concentrated on identifying and addressing patient predictors. Little is known about higher level organisational influences. OBJECTIVE: This paper explores the contribution of organisational factors on poor asthma control, allowing for patient factors, at three organisational levels: the individual patient, local service deliverers, and strategic regional providers. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cross-sectional observational cohort study of 64,929 people with asthma from 1205 primary care practices spread throughout the United Kingdom (UK). Patient clinical data were recorded during a routine asthma review. METHOD: Data were analysed using simple descriptive, multiple regression and complex multi-level modelling techniques, accounting for practice clustering of patients. RESULTS: Poor asthma control was associated with areas of higher deprivation [regression coefficient 0.026 (95% confidence intervals 0.006; 0.046)] and urban practice [-0.155 (-0.275; -0.035)] but not all local and regional variation was explained by the data. In contrast, patient level predictors of poor control were: short acting bronchodilator overuse [2.129 (2.091; 2.164)], days-off due to asthma [1.203 (1.148; 1.258)], PEFR<80 [0.76 (0.666; 0.854)], non-use of a self-management plan (SMP) [0.554 (0.515; 0.593)], poor inhaler technique [0.53 (0.475; 0.585)], poor medication compliance [0.385 (-0.007; 0.777)], and gender [0.314 (0.281; 0.347)]. Pattern of medication use, smoking history, age, body mass index (BMI), and health service resource use were also significant factors for predicting control. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting of health service resource requires knowledge of the factors associated with poor control of asthma symptoms. In the UK the contribution of local and regional structures appears minimal in explaining variation in asthma outcomes. However, unexplained variation in the data suggests other unrecorded factors may play a part. While patient personal characteristics (including self-management plan use, inhaler technique, medication compliance) appear to be the predominant influence the complex nature of the disease means that some, perhaps more subtle, influences are affecting the variability at all levels and this variance needs to be explored. Further research in other international contexts is required to identify the likely applicability of these findings to other health care systems.

Assessing asthma control in UK primary care: use of routinely collected prospective observational consultation data to determine appropriateness of a variety of control assessment models.

BACKGROUND: Assessing asthma control using standardised questionnaires is recommended as good clinical practice but there is little evidence validating their use within primary care. There is however, strong empirical evidence to indicate that age, weight, gender, smoking, symptom pattern, medication use, health service resource use, geographical location, deprivation, and organisational issues, are factors strongly associated with asthma control. A good control measure is therefore one whose variation is most explained by these factors. METHOD: Eight binary (Yes = poor control, No = good control) models of asthma control were constructed from a large UK primary care dataset: the Royal College of Physicians 3-Questions (RCP-3Qs); the Jones Morbidity Index; three composite measures; three single component models. Accounting for practice clustering of patients, we investigated the effects of each model for assessing control. The binary models were assessed for goodness-of-fit statistics using Pseudo R-squared and Akaikes Information Criteria (AIC), and for performance using Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic (AUROC). In addition, an expanded RCP-3Q control scale (0-9) was derived and assessed with linear modelling. The analysis identified which model was best explained by the independent variables and thus could be considered a good model of control assessment. RESULTS: 1,205 practices provided information on 64,929 patients aged 13+ years. The RCP-3Q model provided the best fit statistically, with a Pseudo R-squared of 18%, and an AUROC of 0.79. By contrast, the composite model based on the GINA definition of controlled asthma had a higher AIC, an AUROC of 0.72, and only 10% variability explained. In addition, although the Peak Expiratory Flow Rate (PEFR) model had the lowest AIC, it had an AUROC of 71% and only 6% of variability explained. However, compared with the RCP-3Qs binary model, the linear RCP-3Q Total Score Model (Scale 0-9), was found to be a more robust 'tool' for assessing asthma control with a lower AIC (28,6163) and an R-squared of 33%. CONCLUSION: In the absence of a gold standard for assessing asthma control in primary care, the results indicate that the RCP-3Qs is an effective control assessment tool but, for maximum effect, the expanded scoring model should be used.

Understanding what helps or hinders asthma action plan use: a systematic review and synthesis of the qualitative literature.

OBJECTIVE: To understand better what helps and/or hinders asthma action plan use from the professionals and patients/carers perspective. METHODS: Systematic review and qualitative synthesis (using meta-ethnography). RESULTS: Nineteen studies (20 papers) were included in an analysis of patients/carers' and professionals' views. Seven main influences on action plan implementation were identified including perceived un-helpfulness and irrelevance of the plans. Translation and synthesis of the original authors' interpretations suggested that action plan promotion and use was influenced by professional and patient/carers' asthma beliefs and attitudes and patient/carer experiences of managing asthma. Action plan use is hindered because professionals and patients/carers have different explanatory models of asthma, its management and their respective roles in the management process. Patients/carers, based on their experiential knowledge of their condition, perceive themselves as capable, effective in managing their asthma, but health professionals do not always share this view. CONCLUSION: Professionally provided medically focused action plans that do not 'fit' with and incorporate the patients'/carers' views of asthma, and their management strategies, will continue to be under-utilised. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Professionals need to develop a more patient-centred, partnership-based, approach to the joint development and review of action plans, recognising the experiential asthma knowledge of patients/carers.

Understanding what asthma plans mean: a linguistic analysis of terminology used in published texts.

AIM: To identify from the literature what terms are used for 'asthma plans', with what meaning, and in what context(s). METHODS: Linguistic analysis of a selected body of asthma literature from 1989-2009. RESULTS: A wide range of asthma plan terminology was evident, with terms such as 'action plans', 'self-management plans' and 'treatment plans' being applied inconsistently and synonymously. For individual patients the term 'asthma plan' can describe a clinically-determined list of prescribed medication, an agreed plan to guide self-management of changing symptoms, or a more holistic 'living with asthma' plan. In some contexts the term 'asthma plan' was also used to describe an organisational system of care, which causes further ambiguity. CONCLUSIONS: Within the literature, a plethora of terms is used inconsistently and with varied meaning. This is a potential, but previously unrecognised, barrier to asthma plan implementation. A taxonomy of asthma plans and a standardised definitions of terms is required.

Systems for the management of respiratory disease in primary care--an international series: United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: The UK National Health Service (NHS) is essentially publicly funded through general taxation. Challenges facing the NHS include the rise in prevalence of long-term conditions and financial pressures. NATIONAL POLICY TRENDS: Political devolution within the UK has led to variations in the way services are organised and delivered between the four nations. PRIMARY CARE RESPIRATORY SERVICES IN THE UK: Primary care is the first point of contact with services. Most respiratory conditions are managed here, including prevention, diagnosis, treatment and palliative care. EPIDEMIOLOGY: Respiratory disease accounts for more primary care consultations than any other type of illness, with 24 million consultations annually. ACCESS TO CARE: Equitable access to care is an ongoing challenge: telehealthcare is being tried as a possible solution for monitoring of asthma and COPD. REFERRAL AND ACCESS TO SPECIALIST CARE: Referrals for specialist advice are usually to a secondary care respiratory physician, though respiratory General Practitioners with a Special Interest (GPwSIs) are an option in some localities. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of asthma and COPD is high. Asthma services are predominantly nurse-led. Self-management strategies are widely promoted but poorly implemented. COPD is high on the policy agenda with a shift in focus to preventive lung health and longterm condition management.

Low exercise among children with asthma: a culture of over protection? A qualitative study of experiences and beliefs.

BACKGROUND: Research shows that children are insufficiently active in most affluent societies. Although children with asthma may particularly benefit from physical activity, they are less active than their peers. AIM: To explore the reasons for low physical activity levels among children with asthma and to identify strategies to improve activity. DESIGN OF STUDY: A qualitative study using in-depth interviews and focus groups. SETTING: Six GP practices, a Paediatric Respiratory Unit, and four schools in Tayside, Scotland. METHOD: Purposive sampling identified 30 children with asthma, their parents (n = 38) and school staff (n = 28), who were interviewed or took part in focus groups. Data were examined using constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: The lower level of activity among children with asthma was supported by a climate of fear among parents and teachers about what was safe and possible for the child. Restrictions were imposed because of perceived dangers of exercising in the presence of 'triggers'. Physical activity was regarded as a threat to be managed rather than something beneficial. Teachers found it difficult to distinguish between children who were physically incapable of exercise due to asthma and those who were unmotivated. GPs were unknowingly drawn into the controversy by children and parents who cite medical advice to sanction exemption from exercise. CONCLUSION: GPs and asthma nurses need to provide clear management plans explaining what is appropriate and safe in terms of exercise on a child-by-child basis, to counter the considerable misunderstanding and disagreement among children, parents, and teachers.

Exploring and explaining low participation in physical activity among children and young people with asthma: a review.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is the most common chronic illness among children and accounts for 1 in 5 of all child GP consultations. This paper reviews and discusses recent literature outlining the growing problem of physical inactivity among young people with asthma and explores the psychosocial dimensions that may explain inactivity levels and potentially relevant interventions and strategies, and the principles that should underpin them. METHODS: A narrative review based on an extensive and documented search of search of CinAHL, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. RESULTS & DISCUSSION: Children and young people with asthma are generally less active than their non-asthmatic peers. Reduced participation may be influenced by organisational policies, family illness beliefs and behaviours, health care advice, and inaccurate symptom perception and attribution. Schools can be reluctant to encourage children to take part in physical education or normal play activity due to misunderstanding and a lack of clear corporate guidance. Families may accept a child's low level of activity if it is perceived that breathlessness or the need to take extra inhalers is harmful. Many young people themselves appear to accept sub-optimal control of symptoms and frequently misinterpret healthy shortness of breath on exercising with the symptoms of an impending asthma attack. CONCLUSION: A multi-faceted approach is needed to translate the rhetoric of increasing activity levels in young people to the reality of improved fitness. Physical activity leading to improved fitness should become part of a goal orientated management strategy by schools, families, health care professionals and individuals. Exercise induced asthma should be regarded as a marker of poor control and a need to increase fitness rather as an excuse for inactivity. Individuals' perceptual accuracy deserves further research attention.

Promoting the use of Personal Asthma Action Plans: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how best to encourage health professionals to promote, and for people with asthma to use, asthma action plans. METHODS: Systematic review. Randomised controlled trials published between 1960 and 2006 were searched using multiple electronic databases. Unpublished and ongoing studies were identified by contacting asthma experts internationally. Included trials reported outcome data for the promotion of action plans including issue of plans by health professionals, and patient ownership and use. RESULTS: 14 trials satisfied our study inclusion criteria. Of these, only four studies reported data for action plan use. Interventions included: education of doctors and people with asthma; telephone reinforcement; partially completed action plans and postal prompts inviting patients for general practice review; school asthma clinics; and asthma management systems (including the 3+ plan with patient recall for review and Internet-based physician monitoring). These interventions increased action plan ownership, use, or facilitation of use. Two of the highest quality papers were conducted in primary care and demonstrate the effectiveness of interventions directed at the organisation of asthma care in promoting action plan use. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care professionals could encourage the ownership and use of action plans through the implementation of proactive practice-based organisational systems, though further research is required to assess their practicality and effect on sustaining use long-term. Multi-disciplinary teams working in areas where asthma action plan ownership and use is sub-optimal should therefore consider how such interventions could be incorporated into existing practices and healthcare systems.

Practice development plans to improve the primary care management of acute asthma: randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Our professional development plan aimed to improve the primary care management of acute asthma, which is known to be suboptimal. METHODS: We invited 59 general practices in Grampian, Scotland to participate. Consenting practices were randomised to early and delayed intervention groups. Practices undertook audits of their management of all acute attacks (excluding children under 5 years) occurring in the 3 months preceding baseline, 6-months and 12-months study time-points. The educational programme [including feedback of audit results, attendance at a multidisciplinary interactive workshop, and formulation of development plan by practice teams] was delivered to the early group at baseline and to the delayed group at 6 months. Primary outcome measure was recording of peak flow compared to best/predicted at 6 months. Analyses are presented both with, and without adjustment for clustering. RESULTS: 23 consenting practices were randomised: 11 to early intervention. Baseline practice demography was similar. Six early intervention practices withdraw before completing the baseline audit. There was no significant improvement in our primary outcome measure (the proportion with peak flow compared to best/predicted) at either the 6 or 12 month time points after adjustment for baseline and practice effects. However, the between group difference in the adjusted combined assessment score, whilst non-significant at 6 months (Early: 2.48 (SE 0.43) vs. Delayed 2.26 (SE 0.33) p = 0.69) reached significance at 12 m (Early:3.60 (SE 0.35) vs. Delayed 2.30 (SE 0.28) p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: We demonstrated no significant benefit at the a priori 6-month assessment point, though improvement in the objective assessment of attacks was shown after 12 months. Our practice development programme, incorporating audit, feedback and a workshop, successfully engaged the healthcare team of participating practices, though future randomised trials of educational interventions need to recognise that effecting change in primary care practices takes time. Monitoring of the assessment of acute attacks proved to be a feasible and responsive indicator of quality care.

Clinical symptoms and 'off-label' prescribing in children with asthma.

A UK-wide database of structured asthma review consultations was used to investigate the prevalence of 'off-label' anti-asthma prescriptions in relationship to clinical symptoms of asthma control. The 1050 children (6.1%) aged 16 years or under issued with an off-label prescription reported more nighttime, daytime and activity asthma symptoms, and used more short-acting beta(2)-agonist medication than their peers. Off-label prescribing for children with asthma in UK primary care is associated with worse levels of self-reported asthma control.