Recursos asistenciales en atención primaria para manejo del asma: proyecto Asmabarómetro / Healthcare resources for asthma management at primary care level: Asthmabarometer Project

OBJETIVO: Describir la situación actual con respecto a la dotación de recursos básicos para el manejo del asma en los centros de atención primaria (AP). DISEÑO: Estudio transversal, encuesta cuantitativa ad hoc. EMPLAZAMIENTO Y PARTICIPANTES: trescientos ochenta médicos de AP en España. INTERVENCIONES Y MEDICIONES PRINCIPALES: Análisis de las percepciones de manejo y uso de recursos materiales, humanos y organizativos básicos de los que deberían estar dotados los centros de AP para garantizar una correcta asistencia clínica a los pacientes con asma. RESULTADOS: Los encuestados afirman no disponer de profesional médico o de enfermería referente en enfermedad respiratoria en su centro, en un 64% y un 62% respectivamente. El 92% dispone de espirómetro, el 70% de medidor de pico flujo y el 93% de dispositivos inhaladores placebo. Han recibido en el último año formación teórico-práctica específica promovida por el centro (46%) y por terceros (83%). Se dispone de material educativo para pacientes (78%). No existe protocolo asistencial específico (36%). El 43% no dispone de protocolo de derivación. Se utiliza entrevista clínica para el seguimiento del paciente (90%), pero no cuestionarios validados para medir la adherencia terapéutica (85%), ni checklist para verificar la técnica de inhalación (83%). Se observan diferencias en variables relevantes en el análisis por comunidades autónomas (CC. AA.). CONCLUSIONES: El acceso a determinados recursos en la atención al paciente con asma es limitado en aspectos de coordinación entre niveles, variable según CC. AA. y mejorable en la mayoría de los recursos de salud en asma

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the current provision of basic resources for asthma management in Primary Health Care (PHC). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study, with an ad hoc quantitative survey. LOCATION AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 380 primary healthcare physicians in Spain. INTERVENTIONS AND MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Analysis of perceptions of management and use of basic human, organisational and material resources to ensure appropriate care provision to asthma patients. RESULTS: Survey respondents stated that their centre did not have a consultant doctor (64%) or nurse (62%) in respiratory disease. Almost all (92%) of the centres have spirometers, of which 70% have peak flow meters, and 93% have placebo inhalers. In the last year, respondents have received specific theoretical/practical training from the centre (46%), and by third parties (83%). More than three-quarters (78%) of the centres has educational material available for patients. There is no specific healthcare protocol in 36% of the centres, and 43% had no referral protocol. A clinical interview is conducted to monitor the patient (90%), but there are no validated questionnaires to measure therapeutic adherence (85%), or a checklist to check inhalation technique (83%). Differences are observed in the relevant variables in the analysis of each Spanish Autonomous Community. CONCLUSIONS: Access to certain resources in the care of patients with asthma is limited in aspects of coordination between levels, varied according to Spanish Autonomous Community, and improved in most health resources in Asthma

[Healthcare resources for asthma management at primary care level: Asthmabarometer Project]. / Recursos asistenciales en atención primaria para manejo del asma: proyecto Asmabarómetro.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the current provision of basic resources for asthma management in Primary Health Care (PHC). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study, with an ad hoc quantitative survey. LOCATION AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 380 primary healthcare physicians in Spain. INTERVENTIONS AND MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Analysis of perceptions of management and use of basic human, organisational and material resources to ensure appropriate care provision to asthma patients. RESULTS: Survey respondents stated that their centre did not have a consultant doctor (64%) or nurse (62%) in respiratory disease. Almost all (92%) of the centres have spirometers, of which 70% have peak flow meters, and 93% have placebo inhalers. In the last year, respondents have received specific theoretical/practical training from the centre (46%), and by third parties (83%). More than three-quarters (78%) of the centres has educational material available for patients. There is no specific healthcare protocol in 36% of the centres, and 43% had no referral protocol. A clinical interview is conducted to monitor the patient (90%), but there are no validated questionnaires to measure therapeutic adherence (85%), or a checklist to check inhalation technique (83%). Differences are observed in the relevant variables in the analysis of each Spanish Autonomous Community. CONCLUSIONS: Access to certain resources in the care of patients with asthma is limited in aspects of coordination between levels, varied according to Spanish Autonomous Community, and improved in most health resources in Asthma.

Quantification of inaccurate diagnosis of COPD in primary care medicine: an analysis of the COACH clinical audit.

Background: Inaccurate diagnosis in COPD is a current problem with relevant consequences in terms of inefficient health care, which has not been thoroughly studied in primary care medicine. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the degree of inaccurate diagnosis in Primary Care in Spain and study the determinants associated with it. Methods: The Community Assessment of COPD Health Care (COACH) study is a national, observational, randomized, non-interventional, national clinical audit aimed at evaluating clinical practice for patients with COPD in primary care medicine in Spain. For the present analysis, a correct diagnosis was evaluated based on previous exposure and airway obstruction with and without the presence of symptoms. The association of patient-level and center-level variables with inaccurate diagnosis was studied using multivariate multilevel binomial logistic regression models. Results: During the study 4,307 cases from 63 centers were audited. The rate of inaccurate diagnosis was 82.4% (inter-regional range from 76.8% to 90.2%). Patient-related interventions associated with inaccurate diagnosis were related to active smoking, lung function evaluation, and specific therapeutic interventions. Center-level variables related to the availability of certain complementary tests and different aspects of the resources available were also associated with an inaccurate diagnosis. Conclusions: The prevalence data for the inaccurate diagnosis of COPD in primary care medicine in Spain establishes a point of reference in the clinical management of COPD. The descriptors of the variables associated with this inaccurate diagnosis can be used to identify cases and centers in which inaccurate diagnosis is occurring considerably, thus allowing for improvement.

Community Assessment of COPD Health Care (COACH) study: a clinical audit on primary care performance variability in COPD care.

BACKGROUND: A thorough evaluation of the adequacy of clinical practice in a designated health care setting and temporal context is key for clinical care improvement. This study aimed to perform a clinical audit of primary care to evaluate clinical care delivered to patients with COPD in routine clinical practice. METHODS: The Community Assessment of COPD Health Care (COACH) study was an observational, multicenter, nationwide, non-interventional, retrospective, clinical audit of randomly selected primary care centers in Spain. Two different databases were built: the resources and organization database and the clinical database. From January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 consecutive clinical cases of COPD in each participating primary care center (PCC) were audited. For descriptive purposes, we collected data regarding the age at diagnosis of COPD and the age at audit, gender, the setting of the PCC (rural/urban), and comorbidities for each patient. Two guidelines widely and uniformly used in Spain were carefully reviewed to establish a benchmark of adequacy for the audited cases. Clinical performance was analyzed at the patient, center, and regional levels. The degree of adequacy was categorized as excellent (> 80%), good (60-80%), adequate (40-59%), inadequate (20-39%), and highly inadequate (< 20%). RESULTS: During the study 4307 cases from 63 primary care centers in 6 regions of the country were audited. Most evaluated parameters were judged to fall in the inadequate performance category. A correct diagnosis based on previous exposure plus spirometric obstruction was made in an average of 17.6% of cases, ranging from 9.8 to 23.3% depending on the region. During the audited visit, only 67 (1.6%) patients had current post-bronchodilator obstructive spirometry; 184 (4.3%) patients had current post-bronchodilator obstructive spirometry during either the audited or initial diagnostic visit. Evaluation of dyspnea was performed in 11.1% of cases. Regarding treatment, 33.6% received no maintenance inhaled therapies (ranging from 31.3% in GOLD A to 7.0% in GOLD D). The two most frequently registered items were exacerbations in the previous year (81.4%) and influenza vaccination (87.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this audit revealed a large variability in clinical performance across centers, which was not fully attributable to the severity of the disease.