RESUMEN
People with chronic cough (a cough lasting more than 8 weeks) are often referred to different specialists and undergo numerous diagnostic tests, but clear guidance is lacking. This work summarizes a consensus (an agreement) among medical specialists who are involved in managing people with chronic cough: primary care physicians (family doctors), pulmonologists (doctors who specialize in lung conditions), allergists (medical professionals specializing in allergies) and ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialists. They discussed how to perform a basic assessment of people with chronic cough in primary care (day-to-day healthcare given by a general practitioner or family doctor) and how to refer them to different specialists based on clinical findings or test results.
Asunto(s)
Tos , Atención Primaria de Salud , Derivación y Consulta , Humanos , Tos/diagnóstico , Tos/fisiopatología , Enfermedad Crónica , Consenso , Especialización , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Tos CrónicaRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Errores Diagnósticos/tendencias , Pulmón/fisiopatología , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/tendencias , Atención Primaria de Salud/tendencias , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/diagnóstico , Factores de Edad , Comorbilidad , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Auditoría Médica , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Prevalencia , Pronóstico , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/epidemiología , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/fisiopatología , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/terapia , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Factores de Riesgo , Fumar/efectos adversos , Fumar/epidemiología , Fumar/fisiopatología , España/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Auditoría Clínica/métodos , Atención Primaria de Salud/métodos , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/diagnóstico , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/terapia , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Auditoría Clínica/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Adhesión a Directriz/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Multicéntricos como Asunto , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto , Atención Primaria de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/fisiopatología , Estudios Retrospectivos , España , Espirometría/métodosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Due to the heterogeneous and systemic nature of the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the new guidelines are oriented toward individualized attention. Multidimensional scales could facilitate its proper clinical and prognostic assessment, but not all of them were validated in an international primary care cohort, different from the original ones used for model development. Therefore, our main aim is to assess the prognostic capacity of the ADO, BODEx and DOSE indices in primary care for predicting mortality in COPD patients and to validate the models obtained in subgroups of patients, classified by revised Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (2011) and updated Spanish Guideline (2014). Besides, we want to confirm that the prognostic capacity of all indices increases if the number of exacerbations is substituted by the interval between them and to assess the impact on health of the patient's lifestyle, social network and adherence to treatment. METHODS: Design: External validation of scales, open and prospective cohort study in primary care. SETTING: 36 health centres in 6 European high, medium and low income countries. SUBJECTS: 477 patients diagnosed with COPD, captured in clinical visit by their General Practitioner/Nurse. PREDICTORS: Detailed patient history, exacerbations, lung function test and questionnaires at baseline. OUTCOMES: Exacerbations, all-cause mortality and specific mortality, within 5 years of recruitment. ANALYSIS: Multivariate logistic regression and Cox regression will be used. Possible non-linear effect of the indices will be studied by using Structured Additive Regression models with penalised splines. Subsequently, we will assess different aspects of the regression models: discrimination, calibration and diagnostic precision. Clinical variables modulated in primary care and the interval between exacerbations will be considered and incorporated into the analysis. DISCUSSION: The Research Agenda for General Practice/Family Medicine highlights that the evidence on predictive values of prognostic indices in primary care is scarce. A prospective cohort like that of PROEPOC/COPD provides good opportunities for research into COPD and make communication easier between family practitioners, nursing staff, pneumologists and other professionals, supporting a multi-disciplinary approach to the treatment of these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN52402811 . Date: 15/01/2015. Prospectively registered.