Search

Background: Few published data exist for adherence rates to spirometry acceptability and repeatability criteria in clinical respiratory laboratories. This study quantified adherence levels in this setting and observed changes in adherence levels as a result of feedback and ongoing training., Methods: Two tertiary hospital-based, lung function laboratories (L1 and L2) participated. Approximately 100 consecutive, FVC spirometry sessions were reviewed for each year from 2004 to 2008 at L1 and for years 2004 and 2008 at L2. Each spirometric effort and session was interrogated for adherence to the acceptability and repeatability criteria of international spirometry standards of the time. Feedback of audit results and refresher training were provided at L1 throughout the study; in addition, a quality rating scale was implemented in 2006. No formal feedback or follow-up training was provided at L2., Results: We reviewed 707 test sessions over the 5 years. There was no difference in adherence rates to acceptability and repeatability criteria between sites in 2004 (L1 61%, L2 59%, P = .89). There was, however, a significant difference between sites in 2008 (L1 92%, L2 65%, P < .001). No difference was seen at L2 between 2004 and 2008 (P = .26), while L1 experienced a significant increase in adherence levels between 2004 and 2008 (61% to 92% P < .001)., Conclusions: Clinical respiratory laboratories met published spirometry acceptability and repeatability criteria only 60% of the time in the first audit period. This improved with regular review, feedback, and implementation of a rating scale. Auditing of spirometry quality, feedback, and implementation of test rating scales need to be incorporated as an integral component of laboratory quality assurance programs to improve adherence to international acceptability and repeatability criteria.

Background: The statement of the American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society on the measurement of static lung volumes (SLV) suggests a preferred and alternate method for measuring and calculating SLV., Objective: To determine if differences in functional residual capacity (FRC), vital capacity (VC), residual volume (RV), and total lung capacity (TLC), obtained using preferred and alternate measurement and calculation methodologies, exist in a clinical setting., Methods: Patients attending for SLV at a hospital-based laboratory were recruited. Following spirometry, SLV was measured via body plethysmography, using the preferred and alternate methods in random order. Volumes were calculated using the preferred and alternate calculation methods. Subjects were classified according to standard ventilatory function interpretative strategies. Differences of the means between the measurement methods, and calculation methods were assessed., Results: One hundred eight data sets were analyzed. Significant, but small differences (< 150 mL) in the means for VC and TLC, and RV and TLC were found in the normal and restricted groups, respectively. No significant differences in SLV parameters were found in subjects with air-flow obstruction. Twelve of the 108 changed ventilatory function classification between methods, with the alternate method delivering a lower inspiratory capacity and TLC without a change in RV in 66% of this subgroup. Identical results were obtained when data were analyzed using both calculation methods., Conclusions: Differences in FRC, VC, RV, and TLC obtained using the preferred and alternate measurement methodologies exist in the clinical setting in select classification groups and individuals. Differing calculation methods dependent on measurement method used may be unnecessary.

Background: Many healthcare professionals performing spirometry in primary care have had less than half a day's training in spirometry practice, and the validity of the test results is questionable. Longer training periods, with or without follow-up training, may improve test validity., Objective: To determine if a 14-hour spirometry training course provides sufficient skill to produce valid results, and if follow-up training improves test validity., Methods: Nurses and physiotherapists from rural health facilities chosen by their local area health service undertook a 14-hour spirometry course facilitated by respiratory scientists with at least 5 years experience. Participants consented to on-site reviews at 5, 7, and 9 months after the course. Participants were assessed for adherence to American Thoracic Society (ATS) acceptability and repeatability criteria by undertaking an assessment of spirometry on a naïve subject and a retrospective review of a selection of spirometry results at each site at each visit. Further education was provided following the reviews at 5 and 7 months., Results: Fifteen participants from 10 sites were available for all 3 visits. The prospective phase revealed poor adherence to ATS criteria at 5 months, though this improved over the study period with follow-up training (40% at 5 months, 67% at 7 months, 87% at 9 months). The retrospective review showed that 37%, 60%, and 58% of the tests at 5, 7, and 9 months, respectively, met the ATS criteria and had correctly selected the best test., Conclusion: A 14-hour spirometry training course alone does not provide sufficient skill to perform spirometry to ATS criteria, and short-term follow-up is an essential component for improving test validity.