Search

Background Training is a common and cost-effective way of trying to improve quality of care in low- and middle-income countries but studies of contextual factors for the successful translation of increased knowledge into clinical change are lacking, especially in primary care. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of contextual factors on the effect of training rural healthcare workers in Kyrgyzstan and Vietnam on their knowledge and clinical performance in managing pediatric patients with respiratory symptoms. Methods Primary care health workers in Kyrgyzstan and Vietnam underwent a one-day training session on asthma in children under five. The effect of training was measured on knowledge and clinical performance using a validated questionnaire, and by direct clinical observations. Results Eighty-one healthcare workers participated in the training. Their knowledge increased by 1.1 Cohen’s d (CI: 0.7 to 1.4) in Kyrgyzstan where baseline performance was lower and 1.5 Cohen’s d (CI: 0.5 to 2.5) in Vietnam. Consultations were performed by different types of health care workers in Kyrgyzstan and there was a 79.1% (CI 73.9 to 84.3%) increase in consultations where at least one core symptom of respiratory illness was asked. Only medical doctors participated in Vietnam, where the increase was 25.0% (CI 15.1 to 34.9%). Clinical examination improved significantly after training in Kyrgyzstan. In Vietnam, the number of actions performed generally declined. The most pronounced difference in contextual factors was consultation time, which was median 15 min in Kyrgyzstan and 2 min in Vietnam. Discussion and conclusion The effects on knowledge of training primary care health workers in lower middle-income countries in diagnosis and management of asthma in children under five only translated into changes in clinical performance where consultation time allowed for changes to clinical practice, emphasizing the importance of considering contextual factors in order to succeed in behavioral change after training.

Luis Alves,1 Rachel Pullen,2 John R Hurst,3 Marc Miravitlles,4 Victoria Carter,5 Rongchang Chen,6 Amy Couper,2 Mark Dransfield,7 Alexander Evans,5 Antony Hardjojo,2 David Jones,5 Rupert Jones,8 Margee Kerr,5 Konstantinos Kostikas,9 Jonathan Marshall,10 Fernando Martinez,11 Marije van Melle,5 Ruth Murray,5 Shigeo Muro,12 Clementine Nordon,10 Michael Pollack,13 Chris Price,5 Anita Sharma,14 Dave Singh,15 Tonya Winders,16 David B Price2 1EPIUnit - Epidemiology Research Unit, ITR - Laboratory for Integrative and Translational Research in Population Health, Instituto de Saúde Pública da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal; 2Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 3UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK; 4Pneumology Dept, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Barcelona, Spain; 5Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 6Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease of Shenzhen, Shenzhen Institute of Respiratory Disease, Shenzhen People’s Hospital (Second Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, First Affiliated Hospital of South University of Science and Technology of China), Shenzhen, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China; 7Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Lung Health Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA; 8Research and Knowledge Exchange, Plymouth Marjon University, Plymouth, UK; 9Respiratory Medicine Department, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece; 10BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 11New York-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; 12Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan; 13BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE, USA; 14Platinum Medical Centre, Chermside, QLD, Australia; 15Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 16USA & Global Allergy & Airways Patient Platform, Vienna, AustriaCorrespondence: David B Price, Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, #06-76, Midview City, 573969, Singapore, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgAbstract: The COllaboration on QUality improvement initiative for achieving Excellence in STandards of COPD care (CONQUEST) aims to improve the quality of COPD care in primary care. The CONQUEST target population includes patients diagnosed with COPD, and those undiagnosed but with COPD-like exacerbations, who are at high but modifiable risk of COPD exacerbations, increased morbidity, and mortality. Timely diagnosis and optimized management to reduce these risks is vital. There is a need for a quality improvement program (QIP) that enables long-term improvement of patient clinical outcomes via integration of the program into routine clinical care. Core to the CONQUEST program is the adoption of four specifically designed, globally applicable, and expert-agreed quality standards (QS) for modifiable high-risk COPD patients. Translation of the QS into clinical practice, and implementation of the QIP, is guided by the CONQUEST global operational protocol provided to sites meeting the minimum healthcare system requirements. Initial analyses of current practices are conducted to generate baseline assessments of need within healthcare systems and sites looking to implement the QIP. Implementation is supported by the provision of CONQUEST resources and tools, such as clinical decision support, that promote prompt identification and treatment of patients. Utilization of electronic medical record (EMR) and patient-reported data are integral components of the QIP. Regular, automated collection and analysis of data, combined with a cyclical review of the implementation process, will be conducted for long-term, continuous improvement and health impact evaluation. The CONQUEST QIP will be an important resource in the identification and management of patients with modifiable high-risk COPD. Embedding the CONQUEST QS into routine clinical practice with regular evaluation and feedback will result in long-term quality of care improvement.Keywords: patient-reported outcome, patient-reported information, clinical decision support, primary care, quality standards, integrated care

IntroductionPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a programme of individually prescribed physical exercise, education and self-management activities. PR is recommended in international guidelines for managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other chronic respiratory diseases. PR is still under-recognised in tuberculosis (TB) guidelines and PR is not available in many low and middle-income countries and for people with post-TB lung disease (PTBLD). The main aims of the study are to adapt and define a culturally appropriate PR programme in Kyrgyzstan for people living with PTBLD and to test, in a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT), the effectiveness of PR in improving exercise capacity for people living with PTBLD.Methods and analysisThe study will be divided into three stages: stage 1: focus group discussions with patients living with PTBLD and interviews with PR referrers will be conducted to explore initial perceptions and inform the cultural adaptation, structure and content of PR. Stage 2a: a single-blind RCT evaluating the effectiveness of a culturally adapted 6-week PR programme on maximal exercise capacity, assessed by the incremental shuttle walking test, before and after PR. Participants will be additionally followed-up 12 weeks postbaseline. Additional outcomes will include health-related quality of life, respiratory symptoms, psychological well-being and physical function. Stage 2b: participants’ experience of PR will be collected through interviews and using a log book and a patient evaluation form. Staff delivering PR will be interviewed to explore their experience of delivering the intervention and refining the delivery for future implementation.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved 22/07/2019 by Ethics Committee National Center for Cardiology and Internal Medicine (reference number 17) and by University of Leicester ethics committee (reference number 22293). Study results will be disseminated through appropriate peer-reviewed journals, national and international respiratory/physiotherapy conferences, social media, and through patient and public involvement events in Kyrgyzstan and in the UK.Trial registration numberISRCTN11122503.

Konstantinos Kostikas,1 Chin Kook Rhee,2 John R Hurst,3 Piergiuseppe Agostoni,4,5 Hui Cao,6 Robert Fogel,6 Rupert Jones,7 Janwillem WH Kocks,8– 10 Karen Mezzi,1 Simon Wan Yau Ming,8 Ronan Ryan,8 David B Price8,11 1Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 2Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea; 3UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK; 4Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy; 5Department of Clinical Science and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; 6Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; 7Plymouth University, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, UK; 8Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 9General Practitioners Research Institute, Groningen, the Netherlands; 10Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 11Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David B PriceCentre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UKTel +65 6802 9724Email dprice@opri.sgPurpose: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure (HF) often occur concomitantly, presenting diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for clinicians. We examined the characteristics of patients prescribed adequate versus inadequate therapy within 3 months after newly diagnosed comorbid COPD or HF.Patients and Methods: Eligible patients in longitudinal UK electronic medical record databases had pre-existing HF and newly diagnosed COPD (2017 GOLD groups B/C/D) or pre-existing COPD and newly diagnosed HF. Adequate COPD therapy was defined as long-acting bronchodilator(s) with/without inhaled corticosteroid; adequate HF therapy was defined as beta-blocker plus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and/or angiotensin receptor blocker.Results: Of 2439 patients with HF and newly diagnosed COPD (mean 75 years, 61% men), adequate COPD therapy was prescribed for 726 (30%) and inadequate for 1031 (42%); 682 (28%) remained untreated for COPD. Adequate (vs inadequate) COPD therapy was less likely for women (35%) than men (45%), smokers (36%) than ex-/non-smokers (45%), and non-obese (41%) than obese (47%); spirometry was recorded for 57% prescribed adequate versus 35% inadequate COPD therapy. Of 12,587 patients with COPD and newly diagnosed HF (mean 75 years, 60% men), adequate HF therapy was prescribed for 2251 (18%) and inadequate for 5332 (42%); 5004 (40%) remained untreated for HF. Adequate (vs inadequate) HF therapy was less likely for smokers (27%) than ex-/non-smokers (32%) and non-obese (30%) than obese (35%); spirometry was recorded for 65% prescribed adequate versus 39% inadequate HF therapy.Conclusion: Many patients with comorbid COPD/HF receive inadequate therapy after new diagnosis. Improved equity of access to integrated care is needed for all patient subgroups.Keywords: beta-blocker, long-acting bronchodilator, integrated care, multimorbidity

Additional file1. Semi-structured interview guide.