Spacer microbial contamination and asthma outcomes: case series.

OBJECTIVE: The primary method of drug delivery to treat asthma is through pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDI). Asthma guidelines recommend that providers prescribe a spacer for all patients using pMDI. The objective of this study was to examine whether microbial contamination of spacer devices is associated with poor asthma outcomes. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, single-center case series of seven pediatric patients with persistent asthma who had previously been prescribed a spacer. Spacers were swabbed with sterile cotton and samples assessed for bacterial/fungal growth. Parents completed a questionnaire including Asthma Control Test (ACT) and asthma control was assessed by an Allergist/Immunologist physician. RESULTS: Two (n = 2) children's parent-completed ACT score indicated poorly controlled asthma and three (n = 3) patients were noted to be poorly controlled by the physician. All but one caregiver reported cleaning the spacer with most reporting (n = 5) that they cleaned their child's spacer monthly and one (n = 1) reporting cleaning it every two weeks. One spacer had detected Candida albicans. There was not a statistically significant association between ACT score and microbial growth (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Most spacers in a pediatric sample were not contaminated, despite lack of consistent cleaning, as recommended by spacer manufacturers. Providers and pharmacists should discuss proper cleaning of spacers with caregivers of pediatric patients.

Using Resident and Faculty Focus Groups to Obtain Stakeholder Input during the ACGME Self-study.

INTRODUCTION: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education describes steps to guide programs regarding self-study. The process relies heavily on obtaining stakeholder input to validate findings. Focus groups have been noted to provide input and data not elicited using other methods. Our objective was to show the value of focus groups in obtaining a clear picture of stakeholder priorities as they relate to program aims, opportunities, threats, areas for improvement, and sustainability of improvements. METHODS: We conducted a series of focus groups in 2017-2018 at a pediatric residency program with residents and core faculty members. The first session for each group elicited input regarding program aims, opportunities, and threats. The second session focused on evaluating program progress over the past 10 years and identifying strengths and needed areas for improvement. We documented responses obtained during the focus groups and used inductive content analysis methods to identify major themes. We repeated the focus groups every 6 months. RESULTS: We identified 8 program aims and pinpointed opportunities and threats. Areas for improvement were selected and then presented back to the stakeholders who confirmed their appropriateness. Repetition of the focus groups every 6 months facilitated ongoing measurement of progress and promoted the development of multiple plan, do, study, act cycles for areas of improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Focus groups are an effective way to initiate the self-study process, examine the program aims, opportunities, and threats, and formulate a detailed improvement plan. They are also useful as part of continual evaluation during a dynamic change process.