CONTEXT: Barriers impede translating recommendations for asthma treatment into practice, particularly in inner cities where asthma morbidity is highest. METHODS: The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of timely patient feedback in the form of a letter providing recent patient-specific symptoms, medication, and health service use combined with guideline-based recommendations for changes in therapy on improving the quality of asthma care by inner-city primary care providers and on resultant asthma morbidity. This was a randomized, controlled clinical trial in 5- to 11-year-old children (n = 937) with moderate to severe asthma receiving health care in hospital- and community-based clinics and private practices in 7 inner-city urban areas. The caretaker of each child received a bimonthly telephone call to collect clinical information about the child's asthma. For a full year, the providers of intervention group children received bimonthly computer-generated letters based on these calls summarizing the child's asthma symptoms, health service use, and medication use with a corresponding recommendation to step up or step down medications. We measured the number and proportion of scheduled visits resulting in stepping up of medications, asthma symptoms (2-week recall), and health care use (2-month recall). RESULTS: In this population, only a modest proportion of children whose symptoms warranted a medication increase actually had a scheduled visit to reevaluate their asthma treatment. However, in the 2-month interval after receipt of a step-up letter, 17.1% of the letters were followed by scheduled visits in the intervention group compared with scheduled visits 12.3% of the time by the control children with comparable clinical symptoms. Asthma medications were stepped up when indicated after 46.0% of these visits in the intervention group compared with 35.6% in the control group, and when asthma symptoms warranted a step up in therapy, medication changes occurred earlier among the intervention children. Among children whose medications were stepped up at any time during the 12-month study period, those in the intervention group experienced 22.1% fewer symptom days and 37.9% fewer school days missed. The intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference over the intervention year in the number of symptom days, yet there was a trend toward fewer days of limited activity and a significant decrease in emergency department visits by the intervention group compared with controls. This 24% drop in emergency department visits resulted in an intervention that was cost saving in its first year. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-specific feedback to inner-city providers increased scheduled asthma visits, increased asthma visits in which medications were stepped up when clinically indicated, and reduced emergency department visits.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Barriers impede translating recommendations for asthma treatment into practice, particularly in inner cities where asthma morbidity is highest. METHODS: The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of timely patient feedback in the form of a letter providing recent patient-specific symptoms, medication, and health service use combined with guideline-based recommendations for changes in therapy on improving the quality of asthma care by inner-city primary care providers and on resultant asthma morbidity. This was a randomized, controlled clinical trial in 5- to 11-year-old children (n = 937) with moderate to severe asthma receiving health care in hospital- and community-based clinics and private practices in 7 inner-city urban areas. The caretaker of each child received a bimonthly telephone call to collect clinical information about the child's asthma. For a full year, the providers of intervention group children received bimonthly computer-generated letters based on these calls summarizing the child's asthma symptoms, health service use, and medication use with a corresponding recommendation to step up or step down medications. We measured the number and proportion of scheduled visits resulting in stepping up of medications, asthma symptoms (2-week recall), and health care use (2-month recall). RESULTS: In this population, only a modest proportion of children whose symptoms warranted a medication increase actually had a scheduled visit to reevaluate their asthma treatment. However, in the 2-month interval after receipt of a step-up letter, 17.1% of the letters were followed by scheduled visits in the intervention group compared with scheduled visits 12.3% of the time by the control children with comparable clinical symptoms. Asthma medications were stepped up when indicated after 46.0% of these visits in the intervention group compared with 35.6% in the control group, and when asthma symptoms warranted a step up in therapy, medication changes occurred earlier among the intervention children. Among children whose medications were stepped up at any time during the 12-month study period, those in the intervention group experienced 22.1% fewer symptom days and 37.9% fewer school days missed. The intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference over the intervention year in the number of symptom days, yet there was a trend toward fewer days of limited activity and a significant decrease in emergency department visits by the intervention group compared with controls. This 24% drop in emergency department visits resulted in an intervention that was cost saving in its first year. CONCLUSIONS:Patient-specific feedback to inner-city providers increased scheduled asthma visits, increased asthma visits in which medications were stepped up when clinically indicated, and reduced emergency department visits.
Authors: Michelle Boyd; Toby J Lasserson; Michael C McKean; Peter G Gibson; Francine M Ducharme; Michelle Haby Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-04-15
Authors: Sande O Okelo; Arlene M Butz; Ritu Sharma; Gregory B Diette; Samantha I Pitts; Tracy M King; Shauna T Linn; Manisha Reuben; Yohalakshmi Chelladurai; Karen A Robinson Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-08-26 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Lara J Akinbami; Sean D Sullivan; Jonathan D Campbell; Robert W Grundmeier; Tina V Hartert; Todd A Lee; Robert A Smith Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Anne Fuhlbrigge; David Peden; Andrea J Apter; Homer A Boushey; Carlos A Camargo; James Gern; Peter W Heymann; Fernando D Martinez; David Mauger; William G Teague; Carol Blaisdell Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Laura J Hoeksema; Alia Bazzy-Asaad; Edwin A Lomotan; Diana E Edmonds; Gabriela Ramírez-Garnica; Richard N Shiffman; Leora I Horwitz Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: David Blum; Sunil X Raj; Rolf Oberholzer; Ingrid I Riphagen; Florian Strasser; Stein Kaasa Journal: Patient Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Arlene M Butz; Jill S Halterman; Melissa Bellin; Joan Kub; Kevin D Frick; Cassia Lewis-Land; Jennifer Walker; Michele Donithan; Mona Tsoukleris; Mary Elizabeth Bollinger Journal: J Asthma Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 2.515