BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and national guidelines conclude that the nebulised route of administration of bronchodilators has no advantage over the use of a spacer in moderately severe exacerbations of asthma. Whether this recommendation is implemented and whether it might affect use of staff time is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the current method of administration of bronchodilators to those with non-life-threatening asthma attending emergency departments (ED) in London, UK and to monitor the implementation of a new policy to administer bronchodilators by spacers in one ED with a special reference to the time taken by nurses to administer the therapy by two different routes. METHODS: Thirty-five EDs in Greater London were surveyed regarding their current practice. A time and motion study was then undertaken in one department observing nurses administering bronchodilators in the 3 weeks before and 3 weeks after a departmental policy change to favour the use of spacer devices rather than nebulisers. RESULTS: The majority of EDs (94.3%) in Greater London were using the nebulised route of administering bronchodilators to the majority of their adult patients. Spacers were more commonly used for the treatment of children (60.3% of departments using spacers and nebulisers or spacers alone). Over half of the hospitals surveyed (51.4%) were unaware that the British Guidelines on Asthma Management suggested that outcomes were the same and that there were potential advantages in the use of a spacer for both adults and children. Time and motion studies showed that the use of a spacer took no more nursing time than administration of the bronchodilator via a nebuliser; in fact treatment and set-up time were considerably lower for spacers. CONCLUSION: Spacer administration of bronchodilators to those with asthma attending EDs utilises less treatment time than use of a nebuliser. A survey of EDs in Greater London has shown that despite guideline conclusions there appears to be little evidence of reduction in use of nebulisers; a fear that use of alternatives might take nurses longer is not supported by this study.
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and national guidelines conclude that the nebulised route of administration of bronchodilators has no advantage over the use of a spacer in moderately severe exacerbations of asthma. Whether this recommendation is implemented and whether it might affect use of staff time is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the current method of administration of bronchodilators to those with non-life-threatening asthma attending emergency departments (ED) in London, UK and to monitor the implementation of a new policy to administer bronchodilators by spacers in one ED with a special reference to the time taken by nurses to administer the therapy by two different routes. METHODS: Thirty-five EDs in Greater London were surveyed regarding their current practice. A time and motion study was then undertaken in one department observing nurses administering bronchodilators in the 3 weeks before and 3 weeks after a departmental policy change to favour the use of spacer devices rather than nebulisers. RESULTS: The majority of EDs (94.3%) in Greater London were using the nebulised route of administering bronchodilators to the majority of their adult patients. Spacers were more commonly used for the treatment of children (60.3% of departments using spacers and nebulisers or spacers alone). Over half of the hospitals surveyed (51.4%) were unaware that the British Guidelines on Asthma Management suggested that outcomes were the same and that there were potential advantages in the use of a spacer for both adults and children. Time and motion studies showed that the use of a spacer took no more nursing time than administration of the bronchodilator via a nebuliser; in fact treatment and set-up time were considerably lower for spacers. CONCLUSION: Spacer administration of bronchodilators to those with asthma attending EDs utilises less treatment time than use of a nebuliser. A survey of EDs in Greater London has shown that despite guideline conclusions there appears to be little evidence of reduction in use of nebulisers; a fear that use of alternatives might take nurses longer is not supported by this study.