Primary Care Physicians', Nurse Practitioners' and Physician Assistants' Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs Regarding COPD: 2007 To 2014.

To assess current primary care physicians', nurse practitioners' (NP) and physicians assistants' (PA) knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and changes from a similar 2007 assessment, we surveyed attendees of 3 regional continuing medical education programs and compared the 2013/2014 responses with responses to a similar survey completed in 2007. Survey data included information on personal demographics, agreement with perceived barriers to COPD diagnosis, awareness, and use of COPD guidelines, and beliefs regarding the value of available COPD therapies. In 2013/2014, 426 primary care clinicians (278 medical doctors [MDs] and doctors of osteopathic medicine [DO] and 148 NPs/PAs) provided useable responses (overall response rate 61%). Overall these physicians were older and more experienced than the NPs/PAs but with few other differences in responses except significantly greater physician reported use of spirometry for COPD diagnosis. About half of the clinicians reported having in-office spirometers but less than two thirds reported using them for all COPD diagnoses. All respondents reported multiple barriers to COPD diagnosis but with fewer than in 2007 reporting lack of knowledge or awareness of COPD guidelines as a major barrier. The most striking difference between 2007 and 2013/2014 responses was the marked increase in beliefs by all clinicians in the ability of COPD treatments to reduce symptoms and numbers of exacerbations. These data affirm that primary care clinicians continue to report multiple barriers to COPD diagnosis including lack of easy access to spirometry and frequent failure to include spirometry in diagnostic confirmation. However, since 2007, the clinicians report a remarkable decline in therapeutic nihilism, which may enhance their interest in learning more about diagnosing and managing COPD.

Comparing the Asthma APGAR system and the Asthma Control Test™ in a multicenter primary care sample.

OBJECTIVE: To compare asthma control assessment using the Asthma APGAR system, a tool developed by primary care clinicians, in a multicenter primary care sample with the Asthma Control Test (ACT™)/Childhood Asthma Control Test (CACT™), a tool developed by asthma specialists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a substudy of a multicenter, randomized, controlled pragmatic trial that tests the effectiveness of the Asthma APGAR system in primary care practices. As part of the study, enrolled patients completed both the ACT™/CACT™ and the Asthma APGAR system between March 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011. Kappa and McNemar statistics were used to compare the results of questionnaires. RESULTS: Of the 468 patients in our sample, 306 (65%) were classified as not controlled by the ACT™/CACT™ or the Asthma APGAR system. The overall agreement was 84.4%, with a kappa value of .68 (substantial agreement) and a McNemar test P value of .35 (suggesting no significant difference in the direction of disagreement). Of those with poor control as defined by the Asthma APGAR system, 23.8% (73) had no controller medications and 76.5% (234) were seldom or sometimes able to avoid identified triggers for their asthma. Of those who stated that they had been prescribed controller medications, 116 of 332 (35%) stated that they did not use the controller medication on a daily basis. CONCLUSION: The Asthma APGAR system and the ACT™/CACT™ similarly assess asthma control in a multicenter primary care-based sample. The Asthma APGAR system identified an "actionable item" in more than 75% (234) of the individuals with poor asthma control, thus linking an assessment of poor asthma control with a management strategy.

The gender specific frequency of risk factor and CHD diagnoses prior to incident MI: a community study.

BACKGROUND: CHD is a chronic disease often present years prior to incident AMI. Earlier recognition of CHD may be associated with higher levels of recognition and treatment of CHD risk factors that may delay incident AMI. To assess timing of CHD and CHD risk factor diagnoses prior to incident AMI. METHODS: This is a 10-year population based medical record review study that included all medical care providers in Olmsted County, Minnesota for all women and a sample of men residing in Olmsted County, MN with confirmed incident AMI between 1995 and 2000. RESULTS: All medical care for the 10 years prior to incident AMI was reviewed for 150 women and 148 men (38% sample) in Olmsted County, MN. On average, women were older than men at the time of incident AMI (74.7 versus 65.9 years, p < 0.0001). 30.4% of the men and 52.0% of the women received diagnoses of CHD prior to incident AMI (p = 0.0002). Unrecognized and untreated CHD risk factors were present in both men (45% of men 5 years prior to AMI) and women (22% of women 5 years prior to first AMI), more common in men and those without a diagnosis of CHD prior to incident AMI (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: A CHD diagnosis prior to incident AMI is associated with higher rates of recognition and treatment of CHD risk factors suggesting that diagnosing CHD prior to AMI enhances opportunities to lower the risk of future CHD events.

Measuring asthma quality in primary care: can we develop better measures?

OBJECTIVE: Asthma is common and commonly under-treated. Currently quality indicators often do not provide specific directions for areas of improvement. This work lays the foundation for a quality improvement initiative that provides practice-specific feedback related directly to clinical activities completed for individual patients with asthma. METHODS: Medical record review using a group of quality assessment elements developed from previous medical record review studies of asthma care and the NAEPP asthma care guidelines. RESULTS: For 500 school children ages 5-18 yr who made one or more asthma visits in the year of interest, the frequency of daytime asthma symptoms were recorded in 54% of patients' medical records at any time during a one-year period, while nighttime symptom frequency was recorded in 33%. Only 12% of medical records recorded any information on missed work, school or activity days. Nine percent recorded information or acknowledged any asthma "triggers". Asthma severity level was documented in only an additional 4% of the children's records. Most medical records documented prescribed asthma medications and dosages (85%) but few recorded the medications or dosages the patients were actually taking. CONCLUSIONS: Many medical records do not include the basic clinical information required to assess asthma severity, adherence to asthma therapy or the response to therapy. This lack of information makes implementation of asthma care guidelines impossible. Therefore, these measures may be useful baseline quality indicators to begin the process of improving asthma care.