1. 'You're on mute!' Does pediatric CF home spirometry require physiologist supervision?
- Author
-
Aidan Laverty, Mollie Riley, Benjamin Griffiths, Paul Aurora, Stephanie Brotherston, Emma Fettes, and Claire Doughty
- Subjects
Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine ,Spirometry ,Protocol (science) ,2019-20 coronavirus outbreak ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Cystic Fibrosis ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ,SARS-CoV-2 ,business.industry ,Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) ,COVID-19 ,Patient feedback ,Primary outcome ,Secondary outcome ,Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health ,Physical therapy ,Humans ,Medicine ,Child ,business ,Monitoring, Physiologic - Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has accelerated the move towards home spirometry monitoring, including in children. The aim of this study is to determine whether the remote supervision of spirometry by a physiologist improves the technical quality and failure rate of the maneuvers. METHOD: Children with cystic fibrosis who had been provided with NuvoAir home spirometers were randomly allocated to either supervised or unsupervised home spirometry following a detailed training session. Home spirometry was performed every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. Tests were assigned a quality factor (QF) using our laboratory grading system as per American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society standards, with tests marked from A to D, or Fail. In our laboratory, we aim for QF A in all spirometry tests, but report results of QF B or C with a cautionary note. QF A was, therefore, the primary outcome, and QF A-C, the secondary outcome. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were enrolled; 166 measurements were obtained in the supervised group, and 153 in the unsupervised group. Significantly more measurements achieved QF A in the supervised compared to unsupervised group (89% vs. 74%; p =
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF