20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Patient experience of COPD care: outcomes from the British Lung Foundation Patient Passport

      research-article

      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

          Introduction

          The British Lung Foundation (BLF) COPD Patient Passport (www.blf.org.uk/passport) was developed as a resource to help people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and clinicians to consider the care received and identify essential omissions. We used the online data collected to evaluate the delivery of COPD care in the UK from a patient perspective.

          Methods

          The patient passport consists of 13 questions relating to key aspects of COPD care including: spirometry confirmation of diagnosis, understanding their diagnosis, support and a written management plan, vaccinations, smoking cessation, physical activity, exercise, eating well, pulmonary rehabilitation, exacerbations, medications and yearly reviews. Data were presented as proportions with an answer corresponding to good care, and plotted over time to identify trends.

          Results

          After removing identifiable duplicates, data from 41 769 entries, completed online between November 2014 and April 2019, remained ( table 1). Twenty-four per cent reported getting support to manage their care and a written action plan; 53% could spot the signs of an acute exacerbation; 34% had discussed pulmonary rehabilitation and 41% stated they understood their COPD, and their doctor or nurse had explained where to find information, advice and emotional support. A quarter reported not receiving influenza vaccination and a third of those who smoke were not offered support to quit smoking. Even the strongest areas including spirometry-confirmed diagnosis, and knowing the importance of being active and eating well, achieved only around 80%. Response patterns remained stable or worsened over time.

          Discussion

          Responses to the BLF COPD Patient Passport identify substantial gaps in patients’ experience of care, which did not appear to improve during the 5 years covered. These data provide a unique yet commonly overlooked perspective on care quality, and highlight that new approaches will be needed to meet the ambitions to improve respiratory care set out in the NHS Long Term Plan.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

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

          The COPD assessment test (CAT): response to pulmonary rehabilitation. A multicentre, prospective study.

          The COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) assessment test (CAT) is a recently introduced, simple to use patient-completed quality of life instrument that contains eight questions covering the impact of symptoms in COPD. It is not known how the CAT score performs in the context of clinical pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programmes or what the minimum clinically important difference is. The introduction of the CAT score as an outcome measure was prospectively studied by PR programmes across London. It was used alongside other measures including the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression score, the Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea score and a range of different walking tests. Patients completed a 5-point anchor question used to assess overall response to PR from 'I feel much better' to 'I feel much worse'. Data were available for 261 patients with COPD participating in seven programmes: mean (SD) age 69.0 (9.0) years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) 51.1 (18.7) % predicted, MRC score 3.2 (1.0). Mean change in CAT score after PR was 2.9 (5.6) points, improving by 3.8 (6.1) points in those scoring 'much better' (n=162), and by 1.3(4.5) in those who felt 'a little better' (n=88) (p=0.002). Only eight individuals reported no difference after PR and three reported feeling 'a little worse', so comparison with these smaller groups was not possible. The CAT score is simple to implement as an outcome measure, it improves in response to PR and can distinguish categories of response.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Austerity and health: the impact in the UK and Europe

            Abstract Austerity measures—reducing social spending and increasing taxation—hurts deprived groups the most. Less is known about the impact on health. In this short review, we evaluate the evidence of austerity’s impact on health, through two main mechanisms: a ‘social risk effect’ of increasing unemployment, poverty, homelessness and other socio-economic risk factors (indirect), and a ‘healthcare effect’ through cuts to healthcare services, as well as reductions in health coverage and restricting access to care (direct). We distinguish those impacts of economic crises from those of austerity as a response to it. Where possible, data from across Europe will be drawn upon, as well as more extensive analysis of the UK’s austerity measures performed by the authors of this review.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The PROactive instruments to measure physical activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

              No current patient-centred instrument captures all dimensions of physical activity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Our objective was item reduction and initial validation of two instruments to measure physical activity in COPD. Physical activity was assessed in a 6-week, randomised, two-way cross-over, multicentre study using PROactive draft questionnaires (daily and clinical visit versions) and two activity monitors. Item reduction followed an iterative process including classical and Rasch model analyses, and input from patients and clinical experts. 236 COPD patients from five European centres were included. Results indicated the concept of physical activity in COPD had two domains, labelled “amount” and “difficulty”. After item reduction, the daily PROactive instrument comprised nine items and the clinical visit contained 14. Both demonstrated good model fit (person separation index >0.7). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the bidimensional structure. Both instruments had good internal consistency (Cronbach's α>0.8), test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.9) and exhibited moderate-to-high correlations (r>0.6) with related constructs and very low correlations (r<0.3) with unrelated constructs, providing evidence for construct validity. Daily and clinical visit “PROactive physical activity in COPD” instruments are hybrid tools combining a short patient-reported outcome questionnaire and two activity monitor variables which provide simple, valid and reliable measures of physical activity in COPD patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open Respir Res
                BMJ Open Respir Res
                bmjresp
                bmjopenrespres
                BMJ Open Respiratory Research
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2052-4439
                2019
                3 October 2019
                : 6
                : 1
                : e000478
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentNational Heart and Lung Institute , Imperial College London , London, UK
                [2 ]Primary Care Respiratory Society UK , Knowle, UK
                [3 ]British Lung Foundation , London, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Keir Philip; keir.philip@ 123456nhs.net
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9614-3580
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3235-0454
                Article
                bmjresp-2019-000478
                10.1136/bmjresp-2019-000478
                6797266
                31673369
                80bf93f1-2a63-43a4-b870-c0f79bde6762
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 06 September 2019
                : 16 September 2019
                : 16 September 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272, National Institute for Health Research;
                Award ID: Academic Clinical Fellowship
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000761, Imperial College London;
                Award ID: Imperial College Clinician Scientist Scholarship (
                Categories
                Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
                1506
                2215
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                copd,quality of care
                copd, quality of care

                Comments

                Comment on this article