Patient views on asthma diagnosis and how a clinical decision support system could help:a qualitative study

Abstract Introduction Making a diagnosis of asthma can be challenging for clinicians and patients. A clinical decision support system (CDSS) for use in primary care including a patient‐facing mode, could change how information is shared between patients and healthcare professionals and improve the diagnostic process. Methods Participants diagnosed with asthma within the last 5 years were recruited from general practices across four UK regions. In‐depth interviews were used to explore patient experiences relating to their asthma diagnosis and to understand how a CDSS could be used to improve the diagnostic process for patients. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach. Results Seventeen participants (12 female) undertook interviews, including 14 individuals and 3 parents of children with asthma. Being diagnosed with asthma was generally considered an uncertain process. Participants felt a lack of consultation time and poor communication affected their understanding of asthma and what to expect. Had the nature of asthma and the steps required to make a diagnosis been explained more clearly, patients felt their understanding and engagement in asthma self‐management could have been improved. Participants considered that a CDSS could provide resources to support the diagnostic process, prompt dialogue, aid understanding and support shared decision‐making. Conclusion Undergoing an asthma diagnosis was uncertain for patients if their ideas and concerns were not addressed by clinicians and were influenced by a lack of consultation time and limitations in communication. An asthma diagnosis CDSS could provide structure and an interface to prompt dialogue, provide visuals about asthma to aid understanding and encourage patient involvement. Patient and Public Contribution Prespecified semistructured interview topic guides (young person and adult versions) were developed by the research team and piloted with members of the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group. Findings were regularly discussed within the research group and with PPI colleagues to aid the interpretation of data

Improving primary care management of asthma:do we know what really works?

Asthma imposes a substantial burden on individuals and societies. Patients with asthma need high-quality primary care management; however, evidence suggests the quality of this care can be highly variable. Here we identify and report factors contributing to high-quality management. Twelve primary care global asthma experts, representing nine countries, identified key factors. A literature review (past 10 years) was performed to validate or refute the expert viewpoint. Key driving factors identified were: policy, clinical guidelines, rewards for performance, practice organisation and workforce. Further analysis established the relevant factor components. Review evidence supported the validity of each driver; however, impact on patient outcomes was uncertain. Single interventions (e.g. healthcare practitioner education) showed little effect; interventions driven by national policy (e.g. incentive schemes and teamworking) were more effective. The panel's opinion, supported by literature review, concluded that multiple primary care interventions offer greater benefit than any single intervention in asthma management

A randomised open-label cross-over study of inhaler errors, preference and time to achieve correct inhaler use in patients with COPD or asthma: Comparison of ELLIPTA with other inhaler devices

Errors in the use of different inhalers were investigated in patients naive to the devices under investigation in a multicentre, single-visit, randomised, open-label, cross-over study. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma were assigned to ELLIPTA vs DISKUS (Accuhaler), metered-dose inhaler (MDI) or Turbuhaler. Patients with COPD were also assigned to ELLIPTA vs Handihaler or Breezhaler. Patients demonstrated inhaler use after reading the patient information leaflet (PIL). A trained investigator assessed critical errors (i.e., those likely to result in the inhalation of significantly reduced, minimal or no medication). If the patient made errors, the investigator demonstrated the correct use of the inhaler, and the patient demonstrated inhaler use again. Fewer COPD patients made critical errors with ELLIPTA after reading the PIL vs: DISKUS, 9/171 (5%) vs 75/171 (44%); MDI, 10/80 (13%) vs 48/80 (60%); Turbuhaler, 8/100 (8%) vs 44/100 (44%); Handihaler, 17/118 (14%) vs 57/118 (48%); Breezhaler, 13/98 (13%) vs 45/98 (46%; all P<0.001). Most patients (57-70%) made no errors using ELLIPTA and did not require investigator instruction. Instruction was required for DISKUS (65%), MDI (85%), Turbuhaler (71%), Handihaler (62%) and Breezhaler (56%). Fewer asthma patients made critical errors with ELLIPTA after reading the PIL vs: DISKUS (3/70 (4%) vs 9/70 (13%), P=0.221); MDI (2/32 (6%) vs 8/32 (25%), P=0.074) and significantly fewer vs Turbuhaler (3/60 (5%) vs 20/60 (33%), P<0.001). More asthma and COPD patients preferred ELLIPTA over the other devices (all P≤0.002). Significantly, fewer COPD patients using ELLIPTA made critical errors after reading the PIL vs other inhalers. More asthma and COPD patients preferred ELLIPTA over comparator inhalers