6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Spotlight on primary care management of COPD: Electronic health records

      editorial
      1 , 1
      Chronic Respiratory Disease
      SAGE Publications

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Long-term management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in primary care depends on high quality clinical recording. From diagnosis to disease surveillance, it is difficult to assure high quality care of COPD without good records. For some years international evidence has exposed gaps between observed and recommended care in key quality indicators of COPD management including recording in the patient electronic health records (EHRs). This can be seen particularly in the recording and interpretation of spirometry measurements. 1 –8 In their recent paper in this journal Heinmüller et al. have highlighted shortcomings in the recording of COPD care in general practices in Germany. 9 Their findings suggest sub-optimal care across a range of quality indicators. Spirometry data to confirm a secure diagnosis of COPD could not be extracted. There was a lack of standardized recording within the EHRs. Data were not easily accessible from a single database and the records were difficult to search. It cannot be concluded that poor recording of quality indicators represents genuine deficits in care, but it begs the question whether low quality recording is itself evidence of low quality care. Poor recording may impede the delivery of appropriate interventions. Absence of records of spirometry-confirmed diagnosis, of smoking history or nicotine replacement therapy, of influenza or pneumococcus vaccination, of referral for pulmonary rehabilitation, or of the occurrence of an exacerbation, may prevent proactive disease surveillance and treatment. Poor recording makes the assessment of quality of care of COPD impossible in both the individual and in the practice overall. Comprehensive record-keeping provides a baseline against which change can be judged. Improvements in the recording of care may not assure improvements in the quality of care, but they are essential to the assessment of quality. Rates of recording of spirometry in COPD patients in primary care vary greatly across different countries and are often low. 5,6,9 –11 Where spirometry is recorded interpretation is frequently inaccurate with up to 30% of patients incorrectly diagnosed with COPD. 5 –8,10,11 Rothnie et al. found that 99% of primary care traces were of adequate quality but that only 73% were consistent with obstruction. 5 Concerted efforts such as the adoption of a national program in Finland for the prevention and treatment of COPD in primary care and the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) in the United Kingdom (UK) have been associated with significant improvements in the recording of patient smoking habits and spirometry results in the EHRs. 11,12 The maintenance of a COPD diagnostic disease register may also be associated with higher rates of recording of quality indicators. 10 In addition to seeking improvements in the recording of care, the Disease Management Program (DMP) for COPD care in Germany aims to enhance the quality of care through a “top down” system. 9 This approach has led to increased adherence to treatment guidelines in primary care but as yet it has not been associated with reduced rates of hospital admissions for COPD exacerbations. 13,14 In the National Health Service (NHS) in England approximately 95% of general practices participate in the QOF. 15 The QOF is also a “top down” system of financial incentives for general practices to standardize and improve their care of patients with long-term medical conditions, including COPD. 16 Electronic prompts can be integrated in the EHR to remind clinicians of the need to collect data during a consultation in order to meet the QOF criteria. Although a pay-for-performance approach may improve the recording of care in general practice, its effects on quality of care are far from clear. 17 In addition, the beneficial effects of pay-for-performance care may be short-term. 18 The use of financial incentives has been criticized for eroding professional autonomy and for diverting clinical focus to those aspects of care which are measurable at the expense of other facets of care including the patient’s concerns during the consultation. 17,19 Better recording may be achieved in the context of a system like the QOF. It does not inevitably lead to better care, but without good quality recording high quality care is much harder to deliver in general practice. Reliable EHR recording in COPD care is of importance to the possible prevention of exacerbations, an important cause of worse prognosis in COPD. 20 The previous history of exacerbations is a key criterion in prescribing, especially of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy, to prevent acute exacerbations. 21,22 It is difficult to assess accurately the frequency of COPD exacerbations due to their subjective nature and variation in their recording in the EHR. 23 Accessing data on exacerbations from EHRs can be complicated and time-consuming and the practice and accuracy of coding in primary care varies widely between individual clinicians. 24 Data on exacerbations often are entered in a free-text format and can only be retrieved by inspection of individual patient records, undermining the reliability of large-scale data searches. 25 Only those episodes recorded with an accepted electronic code will be detected during an EHR search. One way of identifying an exacerbation is by the prescription of antibiotics and oral corticosteroids. 5 These are frequently prescribed to patients in advance as “rescue packs” to enable COPD patients to intervene early in an exacerbation, reduce its severity and prevent hospital admission. 26 The widespread community prescribing of these packs, for which there is sparse evidence of effectiveness, 27 without evidence of the exacerbation for which they were prescribed, impedes the accurate assessment of the prevalence of moderate COPD exacerbations. Improvements in data recording and auditing of COPD care in UK general practice has occurred during a time of rising rates of prescription of inhaled drugs, including ICS therapy. 26 The change has not been associated with improvements in exacerbation-related hospital admissions or readmissions. 26,28 Long-term surveillance and acute decision making in COPD require good EHR recording in primary care. Annual reviews of COPD should be informed by past records of smoking history and cessation treatment, vaccination, and referral for pulmonary rehabilitation. Consistent recording of exacerbation history is essential to targeted prescribing to prevent acute exacerbations. Reliable and complete recording should be an essential element of high quality COPD care. Without it, doubts arise about the accuracy of the diagnosis, and systematic long-term management of COPD becomes very difficult.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease: the GOLD science committee report 2019

          Precision medicine is a patient-specific approach that integrates all relevant clinical, genetic and biological information in order to optimise the therapeutic benefit relative to the possibility of side-effects for each individual. Recent clinical trials have shown that higher blood eosinophil counts are associated with a greater efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Blood eosinophil counts are a biomarker with potential to be used in clinical practice, to help target ICS treatment with more precision in COPD patients with a history of exacerbations despite appropriate bronchodilator treatment. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2017 pharmacological treatment algorithms, based on the ABCD assessment, can be applied relatively easily to treatment-naive individuals at initial presentation. However, their use is more problematic during follow-up in patients who are already on maintenance treatment. There is a need for a different system to guide COPD pharmacological management during follow-up. Recent large randomised controlled trials have provided important new information concerning the therapeutic effects of ICSs and long-acting bronchodilators on exacerbations. The new evidence regarding blood eosinophils and inhaled treatments, and the need to distinguish between initial and follow-up pharmacological management, led to changes in the GOLD pharmacological treatment recommendations. This article explains the evidence and rationale for the GOLD 2019 pharmacological treatment recommendations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Natural History of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations in a General Practice–based Population with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

            Rationale: Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPDs) are important adverse events in the natural history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objectives: To investigate the natural history of AECOPDs over 10 years of follow-up. Methods: We identified 99,574 patients with COPD from January 1, 2004, to March 31, 2015, from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We defined moderate AECOPDs as those managed outside hospital and severe as those requiring hospitalization. During the baseline period (first year of follow-up), patients were grouped according to the number and severity of AECOPDs and then followed for a maximum of 10 years (mean, 4.9 yr). We investigated the effect of baseline AECOPD number and severity on risk of further events and death. Measurements and Main Results: Around one-quarter of the patients with COPD did not exacerbate during follow-up. Compared with no AECOPDs in the baseline period, AECOPD number predicted the future long-term rate of AECOPDs in a graduated fashion, ranging from hazard ratio (HR) of 1.71 (1.66–1.77) for one event to HR of 3.41 (3.27–3.56) for five or more events. Two or more moderate AECOPDs were also associated with an increased risk of death in a graduated fashion, ranging from HR of 1.10 (1.03–1.18) for two moderate AECOPDs to HR of 1.57 (1.45–1.70) for five or more moderate AECOPDs, compared with those with no AECOPDs at baseline. Severe AECOPDs were associated with an even higher risk of death (HR, 1.79; 1.65–1.94). Conclusions: A large proportion of patients with COPD do not exacerbate over a maximum 10 years of follow-up. AECOPD frequency in a single year predicts long-term AECOPD rate. Increasing frequency and severity of AECOPDs is associated with risk of death and highlights the importance of preventing AECOPDs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The effect of financial incentives on the quality of health care provided by primary care physicians.

              The use of blended payment schemes in primary care, including the use of financial incentives to directly reward 'performance' and 'quality' is increasing in a number of countries. There are many examples in the US, and the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QoF) for general practitioners (GPs) in the UK is an example of a major system-wide reform. Despite the popularity of these schemes, there is currently little rigorous evidence of their success in improving the quality of primary health care, or of whether such an approach is cost-effective relative to other ways to improve the quality of care. The aim of this review is to examine the effect of changes in the method and level of payment on the quality of care provided by primary care physicians (PCPs) and to identify:i) the different types of financial incentives that have improved quality;ii) the characteristics of patient populations for whom quality of care has been improved by financial incentives; andiii) the characteristics of PCPs who have responded to financial incentives. We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychLIT, and ECONLIT. Searches of Internet-based economics and health economics working paper collections were also conducted. Finally, studies were identified through the reference lists of retrieved articles, websites of key organisations, and from direct contact with key authors in the field. Articles were included if they were published from 2000 to August 2009. Randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled before and after studies (CBA), and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating the impact of different financial interventions on the quality of care delivered by primary healthcare physicians (PCPs). Quality of care was defined as patient reported outcome measures, clinical behaviours, and intermediate clinical and physiological measures. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality, in consultation with two other review authors where there was disagreement. For each included study, we reported the estimated effect sizes and confidence intervals. Seven studies were included in this review. Three of the studies evaluated single-threshold target payments, one examined a fixed fee per patient achieving a specified outcome, one study evaluated payments based on the relative ranking of medical groups' performance (tournament-based pay), one study examined a mix of tournament-based pay and threshold payments, and one study evaluated changing from a blended payments scheme to salaried payment. Three cluster RCTs examined smoking cessation; one CBA examined patients' assessment of the quality of care; one CBA examined cervical screening, mammography screening, and HbA1c; one ITS focused on four outcomes in diabetes; and one controlled ITS (a difference-in-difference design) examined cervical screening, mammography screening, HbA1c, childhood immunisation, chlamydia screening, and appropriate asthma medication. Six of the seven studies showed positive but modest effects on quality of care for some primary outcome measures, but not all. One study found no effect on quality of care. Poor study design led to substantial risk of bias in most studies. In particular, none of the studies addressed issues of selection bias as a result of the ability of primary care physicians to select into or out of the incentive scheme or health plan. The use of financial incentives to reward PCPs for improving the quality of primary healthcare services is growing. However, there is insufficient evidence to support or not support the use of financial incentives to improve the quality of primary health care. Implementation should proceed with caution and incentive schemes should be more carefully designed before implementation. In addition to basing incentive design more on theory, there is a large literature discussing experiences with these schemes that can be used to draw out a number of lessons that can be learned and that could be used to influence or modify the design of incentive schemes. More rigorous study designs need to be used to account for the selection of physicians into incentive schemes. The use of instrumental variable techniques should be considered to assist with the identification of treatment effects in the presence of selection bias and other sources of unobserved heterogeneity. In randomised trials, care must be taken in using the correct unit of analysis and more attention should be paid to blinding. Studies should also examine the potential unintended consequences of incentive schemes by having a stronger theoretical basis, including a broader range of outcomes, and conducting more extensive subgroup analysis. Studies should more consistently describe i) the type of payment scheme at baseline or in the control group, ii) how payments to medical groups were used and distributed within the groups, and iii) the size of the new payments as a percentage of total revenue. Further research comparing the relative costs and effects of financial incentives with other behaviour change interventions is also required.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Chron Respir Dis
                Chron Respir Dis
                CRD
                spcrd
                Chronic Respiratory Disease
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                1479-9723
                1479-9731
                18 January 2021
                Jan-Dec 2021
                : 18
                : 1479973120985594
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Ringgold 4616, King’s College London; , London, UK
                Author notes
                [*]Timothy H Harries, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, 3rd Floor Addison House, Guy's Campus, King’s College London, London SE1 1UL, UK. Email: timothy.harries@ 123456kcl.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3891-9157
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2047-8787
                Article
                10.1177_1479973120985594
                10.1177/1479973120985594
                7816527
                33455426
                4ed8148c-a65f-41bd-abbe-53a5ac868582
                © The Author(s) 2021

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Categories
                Editorial
                Custom metadata
                January-December 2021
                ts3

                Respiratory medicine
                Respiratory medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article