Coert Blom

Effectiveness of integrated disease management for primary care chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: results of cluster randomised trial.

Objective To investigate the long term effectiveness of integrated disease management delivered in primary care on quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared with usual care. Design 24 month, multicentre, pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial Setting 40 general practices in the western part of the Netherlands Participants Patients with COPD according to GOLD (Global Initiative for COPD) criteria. Exclusion criteria were terminal illness, cognitive impairment, alcohol or drug misuse, and inability to fill in Dutch questionnaires. Practices were included if they were willing to create a multidisciplinary COPD team. Intervention General practitioners, practice nurses, and specialised physiotherapists in the intervention group received a two day training course on incorporating integrated disease management in practice, including early recognition of exacerbations and self management, smoking cessation, physiotherapeutic reactivation, optimal diagnosis, and drug adherence. Additionally, the course served as a network platform and collaborating healthcare providers designed an individual practice plan to integrate integrated disease management into daily practice. The control group continued usual care (based on international guidelines). Main outcome measures The primary outcome was difference in health status at 12 months, measured by the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ); quality of life, Medical Research Council dyspnoea, exacerbation related outcomes, self management, physical activity, and level of integrated care (PACIC) were also assessed as secondary outcomes. Results Of a total of 1086 patients from 40 clusters, 20 practices (554 patients) were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 20 clusters (532 patients) to the usual care group. No difference was seen between groups in the CCQ at 12 months (mean difference –0.01, 95% confidence interval –0.10 to 0.08; P=0.8). After 12 months, no differences were seen in secondary outcomes between groups, except for the PACIC domain “follow-up/coordination” (indicating improved integration of care) and proportion of physically active patients. Exacerbation rates as well as number of days in hospital did not differ between groups. After 24 months, no differences were seen in outcomes, except for the PACIC follow-up/coordination domain. Conclusion In this pragmatic study, an integrated disease management approach delivered in primary care showed no additional benefit compared with usual care, except improved level of integrated care and a self reported higher degree of daily activities. The contradictory findings to earlier positive studies could be explained by differences between interventions (provider versus patient targeted), selective reporting of positive trials, or little room for improvement in the already well developed Dutch healthcare system. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register NTR2268.

Exploring the variation in implementation of a COPD disease management programme and its impact on health outcomes: a post hoc analysis of the RECODE cluster randomised trial

This study aims to (1) examine the variation in implementation of a 2-year chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management programme called RECODE, (2) analyse the facilitators and barriers to implementation and (3) investigate the influence of this variation on health outcomes. Implementation variation among the 20 primary-care teams was measured directly using a self-developed scale and indirectly through the level of care integration as measured with the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC). Interviews were held to obtain detailed information regarding the facilitators and barriers to implementation. Multilevel models were used to investigate the association between variation in implementation and change in outcomes. The teams implemented, on average, eight of the 19 interventions, and the specific package of interventions varied widely. Important barriers and facilitators of implementation were (in)sufficient motivation of healthcare provider and patient, the high starting level of COPD care, the small size of the COPD population per team, the mild COPD population, practicalities of the information and communication technology (ICT) system, and hurdles in reimbursement. Level of implementation as measured with our own scale and the ACIC was not associated with health outcomes. A higher level of implementation measured with the PACIC was positively associated with improved self-management capabilities, but this association was not found for other outcomes. There was a wide variety in the implementation of RECODE, associated with barriers at individual, social, organisational and societal level. There was little association between extent of implementation and health outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of integrated COPD care: the RECODE cluster randomised trial.

Objectives To investigate the cost-effectiveness of a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) disease management (COPD-DM) programme in primary care, called RECODE, compared to usual care. Design A 2-year cluster-randomised controlled trial. Setting 40 general practices in the western part of the Netherlands. Participants 1086 patients with COPD according to GOLD (Global Initiative for COPD) criteria. Exclusion criteria were terminal illness, cognitive impairment, alcohol or drug misuse and inability to fill in Dutch questionnaires. Practices were included if they were willing to create a multidisciplinary COPD team. Interventions A multidisciplinary team of caregivers was trained in motivational interviewing, setting up individual care plans, exacerbation management, implementing clinical guidelines and redesigning the care process. In addition, clinical decision-making was supported by feedback reports provided by an ICT programme. Main outcome measures We investigated the impact on health outcomes (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), Clinical COPD Questionnaire, St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire and exacerbations) and costs (healthcare and societal perspective). Results The intervention costs were €324 per patient. Excluding these costs, the intervention group had €584 (95% CI €86 to €1046) higher healthcare costs than did the usual care group and €645 (95% CI €28 to €1190) higher costs from the societal perspective. Health outcomes were similar in both groups, except for 0.04 (95% CI −0.07 to −0.01) less QALYs in the intervention group. Conclusions This integrated care programme for patients with COPD that mainly included professionally directed interventions was not cost-effective in primary care. Trial registration number Netherlands Trial Register NTR2268.

Feasibility and applicability of the paper and electronic COPD assessment test (CAT) and the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) in primary care: a clinimetric study

Three questionnaires are recommended in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by the global initiative for obstructive lung disease, of which two are the more comprehensive assessments: the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test and the clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire. Both are carefully designed high-quality questionnaires, but information on the feasibility for routine use is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the time to complete the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test and the clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire and the acceptability of the questionnaires. Furthermore, the agreement between electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires was explored. The time to complete the electronic versions of the questionnaires was 99.6 [IQR 74; 157] vs. 97.5 [IQR 68; 136] seconds for clinical clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test, respectively. The difference in time to complete the questionnaire was not significant. The two questionnaires did not differ in “easiness to complete” or “importance of issues raised in questionnaires”. Electronic vs. paper versions revealed high agreement (ICC CCQ = 0.815 [0.712; 0.883] and ICC CAT = 0.751 [0.608; 0.847]) between the administration methods. Based on this study it can be concluded that both questionnaires are equally suitable for use in routine clinical practice, because they are both quick to complete and have a good acceptability by the patient. Agreement between electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires was high, so use of electronic versions is justified.COPD: questionnaires equally suitable for clinical practiceTwo questionnaires commonly used to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) are equally suitable for routine primary care. Researchers in The Netherlands, led by Janwillem Kocks from the University Medical Center Groningen, administered both the COPD assessment test (CAT) and the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) to 95 patients with the lung disease. These two tests are the most comprehensive assessments recommended by the global initiative for obstructive lung disease for guiding treatment decisions. The researchers found that both tests took approximately 95–100 s on average. Both tests were also equally easy to complete and provided similar types of information. Most patients said they had no preference for either one, and they filled out both electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires in much the same way. The authors conclude that both tests seem fine for routine use.

Are pharmacological randomised controlled clinical trials relevant to real-life asthma populations? A protocol for an UNLOCK study from the IPCRG.

Are pharmacological randomised controlled clinical trials relevant to real-life asthma populations? : A protocol for an UNLOCK study from the IPCRG

The prevalence of comorbidities in COPD patients, and their impact on health status and COPD symptoms in primary care patients: a protocol for an UNLOCK study from the IPCRG

Funding The IPCRG provided funding for this research project as an UNLOCK Group study for which the funding was obtained through an unrestricted grant by Novartis AG, Basel, Switzerland. Novartis has no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This study will include data from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database, and is undertaken in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and the Respiratory Effectiveness Group, which will provide the data for this initiative without charge to the UNLOCK Group.