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

Juliet M. Foster, Gaylor Hoskins, Barbara Smith, Amanda J. Lee, David Price, Hilary Pinnock

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    10 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    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.
    Original languageEnglish
    JournalBMC Family Practice
    Volume8
    Issue numberArticle 23
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Apr 2007

    Fingerprint

    Primary Health Care
    Asthma
    Randomized Controlled Trials
    Management Audit
    Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
    Education
    Patient Care Team
    Quality of Health Care
    Scotland
    General Practice
    Cluster Analysis
    Demography

    Cite this

    Foster, Juliet M. ; Hoskins, Gaylor ; Smith, Barbara ; Lee, Amanda J. ; Price, David ; Pinnock, Hilary. / Practice development plans to improve the primary care management of acute asthma: randomised controlled trial management of acute asthma: randomised controlled trial. In: BMC Family Practice. 2007 ; Vol. 8, No. Article 23.
    @article{7bf7e7357239484fbe0adb56cbf59843,
    title = "Practice development plans to improve the primary care management of acute asthma: randomised controlled trial management of acute asthma: randomised controlled trial",
    abstract = "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.",
    author = "Foster, {Juliet M.} and Gaylor Hoskins and Barbara Smith and Lee, {Amanda J.} and David Price and Hilary Pinnock",
    note = "dc.publisher: BioMed Central Guideline implementation has proved problematic and asthma management remains variable. This paper highlights an all systems strategy for improving primary care management of acute asthma. Research Group 3 - Enhancing Self-care in Disability and Long-Term Conditions. dc.description.sponsorship: Grampian Health Board",
    year = "2007",
    month = "4",
    doi = "10.1186/1471-2296-8-23",
    language = "English",
    volume = "8",
    journal = "BMC Family Practice",
    issn = "1471-2296",
    publisher = "Springer Verlag",
    number = "Article 23",

    }

    Practice development plans to improve the primary care management of acute asthma: randomised controlled trial management of acute asthma: randomised controlled trial. / Foster, Juliet M.; Hoskins, Gaylor; Smith, Barbara; Lee, Amanda J.; Price, David; Pinnock, Hilary.

    In: BMC Family Practice, Vol. 8, No. Article 23, 04.2007.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Practice development plans to improve the primary care management of acute asthma: randomised controlled trial management of acute asthma: randomised controlled trial

    AU - Foster, Juliet M.

    AU - Hoskins, Gaylor

    AU - Smith, Barbara

    AU - Lee, Amanda J.

    AU - Price, David

    AU - Pinnock, Hilary

    N1 - dc.publisher: BioMed Central Guideline implementation has proved problematic and asthma management remains variable. This paper highlights an all systems strategy for improving primary care management of acute asthma. Research Group 3 - Enhancing Self-care in Disability and Long-Term Conditions. dc.description.sponsorship: Grampian Health Board

    PY - 2007/4

    Y1 - 2007/4

    N2 - 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.

    AB - 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.

    U2 - 10.1186/1471-2296-8-23

    DO - 10.1186/1471-2296-8-23

    M3 - Article

    VL - 8

    JO - BMC Family Practice

    JF - BMC Family Practice

    SN - 1471-2296

    IS - Article 23

    ER -