A centralised respiratory diagnostic service for primary care: a 4-year audit.

BACKGROUND: The literature shows that delayed or erroneous diagnosis of respiratory conditions may be common in primary care due to underuse of spirometry or poor spirometric technique. The Community Respiratory Assessment Unit (CRAU) was established to optimise diagnosis and treatment of respiratory disease by providing focused history-taking, quality-assured spirometry, and evidence-based guideline-derived management advice. AIMS: To review the service provided by the CRAU to primary care health professionals. METHODS: Data from 1,156 consecutive GP referrals over 4 years were analysed. RESULTS: From the 1,156 referrals, 666 were referred for one of five common reasons: suspected asthma, confirmed asthma, suspected chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), confirmed COPD, or unexplained breathlessness. COPD was the most prevalent referral indication (445/666, 66.8%), but one-third of suggested diagnoses of COPD by the GP were found to be incorrect (161/445, 36%) with inappropriate prescribing of inhaled therapies resulting from this misdiagnosis. Restrictive pulmonary defects (56/666, 8% of referrals) were overlooked and often mistaken for obstructive conditions. The potential for obesity to cause breathlessness may not be fully appreciated. CONCLUSIONS: Misdiagnosis has significant financial, ethical, and safety implications. This risk may be minimised by better support for primary care physicians such as diagnostic centres (CRAU) or alternative peripatetic practice-based services operating to quality-controlled standards.

Models to enhance research capacity and capability in clinical nurses: a narrative review.

AIM: To identify models used as local initiatives to build capability and capacity in clinical nurses. BACKGROUND: The National Health Service, Nursing and Midwifery Council and the United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration all support the development of the building of research capability and capacity in clinical nurses in the UK. DESIGN: Narrative review. METHODS: A literature search of databases (including Medline and Pubmed) using the search terms nursing research, research capacity and research capability combined with building, development, model and collaboration. Publications which included a description or methodological study of a structured initiative to tackle research capacity and capability development in clinical nurses were selected. RESULTS: Three models were found to be dominant in the literature. These comprised evidence-based practice, facilitative and experiential learning models. Strong leadership, organisational need and support management were elements found in all three models. Methodological issues were evident and pertain to small sample sizes, inconsistent and poorly defined outcomes along with a lack of data. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the vision of a research ready and active National Health Service is to be applauded to date, there appears to be limited research on the best approach to support local initiatives for nurses that build research capability and capacity. Future studies will need to focus on well-defined objectives and outcomes to enable robust evidence to support local initiatives. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: To build research capability and capacity in clinical nurses, there is a need to evaluate models and determine the best approach that will provide clinical nurses with research opportunities.

Smoothing the passage of patients from primary care to specialist respiratory opinion.

AIMS: To assess whether information in general practitioner (GP) referral letters provides a basis for selection of diagnostic tests in patients referred for specialist respiratory advice. METHODS: We undertook a prospective study within a respiratory outpatients department to compare the diagnostic tests planned at three stages of the referral/specialist consultation process: i) using the GP referral letter alone; ii) using the referral letter and patient history; iii) using the referral letter, patient history, and clinical examination. RESULTS: Analysis of the content of GP referral letters revealed wide variations in referral information. A high proportion of tests selected using the referral letter alone were altered after specialist history-taking and examination. Far fewer changes were recorded between history-taking and examination. CONCLUSIONS: Neither literature review nor our study support a system which bases diagnostic test selection on GP referral letters alone. However, our findings suggest that approaches which include specialist history-taking in advance of face-to-face consultation merit further investigation.