Assessing spirometry competence through certification in community-based healthcare settings in Australia and New Zealand: A position paper of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Respiratory Science.

Spirometry has been established as an essential test for diagnosing and monitoring respiratory disease, particularly asthma and COPD, as well as in occupational health surveillance. In Australia and New Zealand, there is currently no pathway for spirometry operators in community-based healthcare settings to demonstrate spirometry competence. The Australia and New Zealand Society of Respiratory Science (ANZSRS) has identified a need for developing a pathway for operators working in community-based practices in Australia and New Zealand to demonstrate spirometry competence and certification. Spirometry certification provides evidence to patients, clients, employers and organizations that an individual has participated in an assessment process that qualifies them to perform spirometry to current international spirometry standards set out by the American Thoracic Society and the European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS). This document describes a competence assessment pathway that incorporates a portfolio and practical assessment. The completion of this pathway and the award of certification confer an individual is competent to perform spirometry for 3 years, after which re-certification is required. The adoption of this competency assessment and certification process by specialist organizations, and the commitment of operators performing spirometry to undergo this process, will enhance spirometry quality and practice in community-based healthcare settings.

Accuracy of asthma and COPD diagnosis in Australian general practice: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Spirometry is the 'gold standard' for diagnosing asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but is rarely used in general practice. AIMS: To compare doctor diagnoses with patient reports/spirometry and to determine doctors' perceptions of spirometry. METHODS: Patients prescribed inhaled medication were recruited from 31 practices. Doctor diagnoses were extracted from practice records. Patients completed a questionnaire and spirometry before and after bronchodilator. In-depth interviews were conducted with a sample of doctors. RESULTS: Doctor diagnoses were available for 278 patients: asthma 192 (69%), COPD 38 (14%), asthma/COPD 40 (14%), and eight patients (3%) with other conditions. The diagnosis of asthma was correctly reported by 93% of patients, but only by 61% of those with COPD alone. Among those with both diagnoses, 83% reported asthma and 48% reported COPD. Of those with a diagnosis of COPD, 65% had fixed airflow limitation. Conversely, only 14% of those had been diagnosed with COPD alone. There was no significant difference in reversibility in forced expiratory volume in 1 second between diagnoses. While recognising the value of spirometry in differentiating between asthma and COPD, most general practices only used spirometry in diagnostically difficult cases. CONCLUSIONS: Doctor-diagnosed asthma is accurately reported by patients. However, COPD remains substantially under-diagnosed. Spirometry needs to be more widely used to improve the accuracy of respiratory diagnoses in general practice.

Effect of spirometry and medical review on asthma control in patients in general practice: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although guidelines for asthma emphasize the importance of spirometry for continuity and evaluation of care, it is underused in general practice. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of spirometry and medical review on asthma control in general practice over 12 months. METHODS: Patients were recruited through 31 practices, which were randomly allocated to one of three groups: Group A had 3-monthly spirometry with medical review, Group B spirometry only before and after the trial, and Group C usual care. Asthma control data were analysed by intention to treat using non-parametric tests and logistic regression models fitted to allow for confounders, repeated measures and clustering by practice. RESULTS: The trial was completed by 195 patients (Group A 69, Group B 78, Group C 48). Asthma control improved in all groups during the 12 months trial, most impressively in Group A (odds ratio per 3 months = 1.27, 95% confidence interval: 1.08-1.49, P = 0.004), but the difference between the groups' respective 3-monthly changes was not significant. At 6 months, asthma control in Group A had increased more from baseline than in Groups B + C (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Regular spirometry with medical review was associated with improved asthma control in general practice patients, while there was less improvement in either the spirometry only or usual care group. The mechanisms of this improvement may include appropriate adjustment of medication and improved compliance.

Do spirometry and regular follow-up improve health outcomes in general practice patients with asthma or COPD? A cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether spirometry with regular medical review improves the quality of life or other health outcomes among patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) managed in general practice. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in 31 general practices in Melbourne during 2007-2008. Practices recruited 305 adult patients who had been prescribed inhaled medication in the preceding 6 months. INTERVENTION: Practices were randomly assigned to one of three groups: Group A patients received 3-monthly spirometry performed by a respiratory scientist with results returned to the practice and regular medical review; Group B patients received spirometry only before and after the trial; and Group C patients received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of life, assessed with the 36-item Short Form (SF-36) Australian (English) Version 2 questionnaire at baseline and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes were assessed with the European Community Respiratory Health Survey at baseline and 12 months. RESULTS: The trial was completed by 253 participants: 79 in Group A, 104 in Group B, and 70 in Group C. Median age was 58 years (range, 18-70 years), and 167 participants (66%) were women. There were no significant changes in SF-36 Physical and Mental Component Summary scores from baseline to 12 months, or significant differences between groups on either scale or any subscale of the SF-36. There were also no significant differences in respiratory symptoms, asthma attacks, written asthma action plans, days lost from usual activities or health care utilisation. CONCLUSION: Three-monthly spirometry and regular medical reviews by general practitioners are not associated with any significant improvement in quality of life or other health outcomes for patients with asthma and/or COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12606000378527.