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: 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.
Authors: Irene Schneider; Leanne Rodwell; Sarah Baum; Brigitte M Borg; Eleonora A Del Colle; Emily R Ingram; Maureen Swanney; Deborah Taylor Journal: Respirology Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 6.424