The Status of Asthma Control and Asthma Prescribing Practices in the United States: Results of a Large Prospective Asthma Control Survey of Primary Care Practices

Control of asthma symptoms is, unfortunately, not a reality for many people with asthma. Asthma control is an ongoing challenge, requiring a multidisciplinary treatment approach. The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute published its Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma in 1997, but the extent of implementation of recommendations in physician's practices remains to be determined. We sought to determine if a systematic implementation of the NAEPP practice guidelines would impact physician's treatment decisions for patients with asthma. The Asthma Care Network is a large, national, point-of-care program developed to assist health care providers in the assessment and management of their patients with asthma. Outcome measurements for the program included level of asthma control, activity limitation, sleep disruption, use of rescue medications, use of controller medications, and urgent care services. A total of 4,901 primary care physicians at 2,876 practice sites enrolled more than 60,000 patients. Nearly three fourths of patients reported symptoms consistent with a lack of asthma control (mean 74%, range 69-81%). Approximately 68% of pediatric patients and 78% of adult patients reported limited activities due to asthma in the past week. Sixty-two percent of pediatric patients and 68% of adult patients reported more than two symptomatic days in the past week. Approximately 40% of the patients surveyed were not using controller therapy. The overall percentage of patients reporting uncontrolled asthma who were prescribed a controller medication increased from 60% to 81%, and the use of inhaled corticosteroids containing medications among these patients increased by 52%. As a result of the assessment of the patients' level of asthma control during the office visit, physicians changed their patterns of prescribing controller therapy in patients with uncontrolled asthma.     

Pediatric Asthma Care in the Emergency Department: Measuring the Quality of History-Taking and Discharge Planning

The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program NAEPP Guidelines include recommendations for history-taking and discharge planning during an asthma visit, but there are no tools to measure performance. The objectives of this study were to define and operationalize key elements of history-taking and discharge planning, to develop a tool for measuring these elements, and to evaluate the quality of history-taking and discharge planning in the emergency department (ED) during visits for asthma using the new tool. Expert opinion and extensive literature review were used to develop a 13-item checklist containing items that should be documented during history-taking and provided during discharge planning for an ED visit for an acute asthma exacerbation by children. A convenience sample of 90 pediatric emergency medicine physicians and allergists rated each item in the checklist. The checklist was used to score audiotapes of asthma visits in the ED. Subjects were 154 parents of asthmatic children aged 4-9 years seeking care in nine inner-city EDs affiliated with asthma centers participating in the National Cooperative Inner-City Asthma Study and the physician/providers who delivered care. Seven of the 13 items on the checklist were rated as required to be performed by more than 90% of the allergist/pediatric emergency medicine physicians. Only 10% of the 154 visits included all seven of the highly rated items, whereas 19% of the visits included three or fewer. Only 7 of the 13 items (54%) were performed in more than 50% of the visits, and 4 items were performed in fewer than 25% of visits. Based on expert ratings, the checklist for measuring elements of history-taking and discharge planning during asthma visits appears to have considerable face validity. In the visits studied, the overall performance of these elements was low. Interventions to improve performance on the checklist might lead to improved care for children with asthma who frequent the ED.     

Pediatric Asthma Care in the Emergency Department: Measuring the Quality of History-Taking and Discharge Planning

The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program NAEPP Guidelines include recommendations for history-taking and discharge planning during an asthma visit, but there are no tools to measure performance. The objectives of this study were to define and operationalize key elements of history-taking and discharge planning, to develop a tool for measuring these elements, and to evaluate the quality of history-taking and discharge planning in the emergency department (ED) during visits for asthma using the new tool. Expert opinion and extensive literature review were used to develop a 13-item checklist containing items that should be documented during history-taking and provided during discharge planning for an ED visit for an acute asthma exacerbation by children. A convenience sample of 90 pediatric emergency medicine physicians and allergists rated each item in the checklist. The checklist was used to score audiotapes of asthma visits in the ED. Subjects were 154 parents of asthmatic children aged 4-9 years seeking care in nine inner-city EDs affiliated with asthma centers participating in the National Cooperative Inner-City Asthma Study and the physician/providers who delivered care. Seven of the 13 items on the checklist were rated as required to be performed by more than 90% of the allergist/pediatric emergency medicine physicians. Only 10% of the 154 visits included all seven of the highly rated items, whereas 19% of the visits included three or fewer. Only 7 of the 13 items (54%) were performed in more than 50% of the visits, and 4 items were performed in fewer than 25% of visits. Based on expert ratings, the checklist for measuring elements of history-taking and discharge planning during asthma visits appears to have considerable face validity. In the visits studied, the overall performance of these elements was low. Interventions to improve performance on the checklist might lead to improved care for children with asthma who frequent the ED.     

Success of a Comprehensive School-Based Asthma Intervention on Clinical Markers and Resource Utilization for Inner-City Children with Asthma in Chicago: The Mobile C.A.R.E. Foundation's Asthma Management Program

Children with asthma in low-income households in Chicago were participants in a school-based mobile van clinic, Mobile C.A.R.E. Our objective was to investigate whether long-term follow-up changed clinical markers and resource utilization. Children were evaluated by a pediatrician in a mobile allergy clinic and classified and treated based on National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) guidelines. Intervention consisted of assessment of allergic environment with avoidance recommendations, institution of appropriate controller therapy and inhaler technique, education on asthma and asthma management, and expectations for asthma control. Over 20,000 children were screened, 2041 were examined at least once, and 677 children had four follow-up visits. With follow-up, there was a decrease in hospitalizations and emergency room visits. Symptomatic markers (daytime and nighttime cough, wheezing, and dyspnea symptoms), frequency of rescue inhaler use, and a quality-of-life score improved from baseline. These findings suggest that ongoing school interventions may reduce resource utilization and improve clinical symptoms. Primary care physicians may be able to deliver specialized care to large numbers of inner-city children with asthma.     

A National Survey of Asthma Knowledge and Practices Among Specialists and Primary Care Physicians

Asthma is a chronic disorder that causes significant morbidity and mortality and requires ongoing chronic care. Approximately two-thirds of people with asthma are receiving care from a primary care clinician, such as an internist, family practitioner, nurse practitioner, or pediatrician. The other one-third of patients are obtaining treatment and ongoing care from specialists, including allergists or pulmonologists. The outcomes of asthma care are a subject of intense investigation. Many studies focus on pharmacotherapy, allergen control, and asthma education as interventions to reduce the morbidity and costs associated with asthma. Fewer studies have explored the differences in outcomes between asthmatic patients cared for by specialists compared with generalists. Even fewer have explored the practice differences between generalists and specialists that may relate to outcomes of care. With the advent of national asthma guidelines and the high prevalence of asthma seen in primary care settings, it is important to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of primary care physicians with regard to asthma.     

Loss of Asthma Control in Inner City Children with Asthma after Withdraw of Asthma Controller Medication

To determine what percentage of inner-city children with asthma would lose asthma control when taken off asthma controllers, a retrospective analysis was performed on inner-city asthmatic children who achieved asthma control in an asthma specific disease management program. Once disease control was achieved patients had stepwise reduction of asthma controllers based on the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) Expert Review Panel (EPR) 2 guidelines. In patients who were taken off all controllers, probability of maintaining asthma control at the first visit after cessation of these medications was significantly lower compared to patients kept on inhaled corticosteroids. We conclude that cessation of asthma controllers in previously well controlled inner-city asthmatic children results in loss of asthma control in a significant number of these patients. Data support recommendations from national asthma guidelines to step down controller therapy, but clinical monitoring is important to reduce impairment due to loss of control.     

A National Survey of Asthma Knowledge and Practices Among Specialists and Primary Care Physicians

Asthma is a chronic disorder that causes significant morbidity and mortality and requires ongoing chronic care. Approximately two‐thirds of people with asthma are receiving care from a primary care clinician, such as an internist, family practitioner, nurse practitioner, or pediatrician. The other one‐third of patients are obtaining treatment and ongoing care from specialists, including allergists or pulmonologists. The outcomes of asthma care are a subject of intense investigation. Many studies focus on pharmacotherapy, allergen control, and asthma education as interventions to reduce the morbidity and costs associated with asthma. Fewer studies have explored the differences in outcomes between asthmatic patients cared for by specialists compared with generalists. Even fewer have explored the practice differences between generalists and specialists that may relate to outcomes of care. With the advent of national asthma guidelines and the high prevalence of asthma seen in primary care settings, it is important to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of primary care physicians with regard to asthma.     

Inpatient management of asthma in the Chicago suburbs: the Suburban Asthma Management Initiative (SAMI).

BACKGROUND: Assessment of inpatient asthma management has generally been limited to urban settings, including Chicago, which is known for its high asthma morbidity and mortality. Previously published data have been based on survey methodology. The Suburban Asthma Consortium (SAC) sought to obtain patient-based data unique to the Chicago suburbs to improve asthma care in those areas. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate current inpatient asthma management based on the 1997 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP). DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of all hospitalized patients 3-65 years bearing asthma-related ICD-9 codes for fiscal year 2002 in community, nonteaching hospitals in Chicago suburbs. RESULTS: Nine hundred two cases were submitted from seven hospitals. The majority ( > or = 75%) received inhaled bronchodilators, systemic steroids, oxygen and pulse oximetry. Antibiotic use (67%), chest radiography (85%), complete blood count (77%), and electrolytes (59%) appeared excessive in view of NAEPP recommendations. Peak flow monitoring (PFM) was recorded on admission in 45% of patients 5 years old and older; 52% had PFM during hospitalization. Thirty-eight percent of patients were taking ICS prior to admission; of those not on ICS, only 12% were newly diagnosed asthmatics. Overall, 51% of patients were discharged with ICS. Patients were more likely to receive ICS at discharge if they had required intensive care (ICU), had been on ICS prior to admission, were referred to an asthma specialist while hospitalized, or were insured. Patients with Medicare/Medicaid (MC/MA) had more repeat emergency visits and hospitalizations, longer lengths of stay, and received less ICS at discharge. Depending on the parameter, 41% or less patients received discharge planning education and were not more likely to have received education if in the ICU. Results ranged significantly between hospitals for most parameters (p < 0.05 or less). CONCLUSION: Study subjects received appropriate acute therapy and oxygen monitoring, but there was a divergence from NAEPP recommendations regarding PFM, ICS use, antibiotics, and laboratory evaluation. Patients receiving MC/MA experienced higher morbidity and received less ICS. Discharge asthma education was suboptimal for most hospitals. Most parameters demonstrated significantly wide practice variations between hospitals. Peak flow monitoring and patient education findings differed significantly from those in survey-conducted studies.     

Community Asthma Program improves appropriate prescribing in moderate to severe asthma.

Asthma guidelines, established by the National Asthma Education and Prevention Panel (NAEPP), seek to guide physicians in the appropriate assessment and treatment of asthma. Poor physician adherence to these guidelines has been documented because of a variety of reported barriers. We sought to test the efficacy of the Community Asthma Program (CAP), which was designed to help primary care physicians (PCP) assess asthma severity and to prescribe medications according to NAEPP guidelines. A prospective, observational study was conducted in 723 patients with asthma (aged < 1-85 years) in two primary care clinics. PCPs had access to patient responses to asthma symptom questions at each visit. The correlations between patient self-reported and PCP-classified asthma severity, treatment prescribed, and missed days from work or school were determined. The effect of the intervention on guideline adherence was assessed by asthma severity level and time. An overall moderate measure of agreement was found between patient self-reported and PCP-classified asthma severity (kappa = 0.48; p < 0.001) although this agreement decreased with increasing severity of asthma. Patient self-reported (r = 0.14; p < 0.001) and PCP-classified (r = 0.17; p < 0.001) asthma severity was weakly correlated with missed days from work or school. Those with severe persistent asthma were 89% less likely to be appropriately treated than the mild intermittent group (OR = 0.11; 95% CI-0.1-0.2). This relationship was not influenced by the different clinics or providers nor by the age of the patient. Over time, the CAP-trained PCPs were more likely to appropriately prescribe asthma medications for those with moderate to severe asthma (Mantel-Haenszel chi2 = 5.11; p = 0.02). Despite appropriate assessment of asthma severity, physicians are undertreating patients with severe asthma, the group with the highest health care use. Use of the CAP over time aided PCPs in appropriately medicating patients with moderate to severe asthma in accordance with guidelines.     

Asthma burden in the United States: results of the 2009 Asthma Insight and Management survey

Updated guidelines and new treatments for asthma have become available since the last major survey of asthma management in the United States was completed ～11 years ago. The Asthma Insight and Management (AIM) survey was conducted to assess the current status of asthma burden in the United States. A geographically stratified screening of 60,682 households provided a national sample of 2500 patients with current asthma (2186 adults aged ≥18 years; 314 adolescents aged 12-17 years). A national sample of 1004 adults without current asthma was interviewed for comparison with the adult asthma population, and 309 asthma health care providers were surveyed for their opinions about the burden of asthma. Asthma prevalence in the United States was estimated at 8%. Twice as many adult asthma patients rated their health as "only fair," "poor," or "very poor," or experienced limitations in activity because of health problems, compared with the general population. Asthma also frequently caused negative emotional symptoms in patients. Most patients experienced asthma throughout the year (63%) and symptoms within the 4 weeks before the summer survey (68%). Overall, 41% of patients responded that asthma interfered with their/their child's life "some" or "a lot". During the year before the survey, 69% of patients experienced at least one severe asthma episode. Asthma burden in the United States remains high despite the availability of updated treatment guidelines and new therapies. Asthma care in the United States remains suboptimal, indicating the need for continued improvements in patient management.     

Practice patterns for oral corticosteroid burst therapy in the outpatient management of acute asthma exacerbations

The use of a short course of oral corticosteroids (OCS), or "steroid burst," is standard practice in the outpatient management of acute severe exacerbations of asthma. Despite published guidelines, the actual practice patterns are unknown. A Web-based survey about typical patterns of OCS administration and total steroid burst dose was administered to pulmonologists (n = 150), allergists (n = 150), primary care physicians (n = 153), and pediatricians (n = 150). No predominant dosing regimen was observed, although a fixed single daily dose was the most commonly prescribed regimen (59%). The majority of physicians treating patients ≥12 years of age prescribed a total burst dose of ≤200 mg and essentially all (99.7%) prescribed ≤600 mg. Among physicians treating younger children, approximately one-quarter prescribed ≤1 mg/kg per day for 3 days (27.8% for children aged 5-11 years of age and 28.1% for children aged <5 years, respectively) and essentially all prescribed ≤2 mg/kg per day for 10 days (99.8% for children aged 5-11 years and 100% for children aged <5 years of age). When prescribing OCS burst therapy for asthma exacerbations, physicians tend to prescribe less than the upper dose recommended in the guidelines; with many physicians prescribing a total steroid burst dose below the lower end of the recommended dose range. Additional study is needed to determine the optimal dose and duration for treating exacerbations of asthma with OCS to minimize both side effects and time to reestablishing asthma control.     

Factors Associated with Asthma Control among Adults in Five New England States, 2006–2007

Background. Despite the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) guidelines that specify the goals of asthma control and management strategies, the number of patients with uncontrolled asthma remains high, and factors associated with uncontrolled asthma are unknown. Objective. The aim was to examine the relationship between asthma control and socio-demographic characteristics, health-care access and use, asthma education, and medication use among adults with active asthma residing in New England. Methods. Data from the 2006–2007 Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System Adult Asthma Call-Back Survey were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression. Asthma control was categorized as “well controlled,” “not well controlled,” or “very poorly controlled” according to the NAEPP guidelines. Results. Of the respondents (n = 3079), 30% met the criteria for well-controlled asthma, 46% for not well-controlled asthma, and 24% for very poorly controlled asthma. Being of Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] = 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2–13.7), unemployed or unable to work (OR = 17.9; 95% CI = 6.0–53.4), high school educated or less (OR = 2.8; 95% CI = 1.6–4.7), current smokers (OR = 2.5; 95% CI = 1.3–5.1), or being unable to see a doctor or specialist for asthma care or unable to buy medication for asthma because of cost (OR = 7.6; 95% CI = 3.4–17.1) were associated with very poorly controlled asthma. In addition, having Coronary Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (OR = 2.6; 95% CI = 1.5–4.5), two or more routine checkups for asthma (OR = 4.5; 95% CI = 2.3–8.9), or an emergency department visit, urgent care facility visit, and hospitalization in the past year (OR = 3.9; 95% CI = 2.1–7.3) were also associated with having very poorly controlled asthma. Using controller medication in the past year (OR = 2.6; 95% CI = 1.6–4.2) and taking a course on how to manage asthma (OR = 3.0; 95% CI = 1.2–7.8) were significantly associated with poor asthma control. Conclusion. The high prevalence (70%) of not well-controlled asthma and poorly controlled asthma in this study emphasizes the need to identify factors associated with poor asthma control for development of targeted intervention. A health policy of increasing asthma education, health-care access, and smoking cessation may be effective and result in better asthma control and management.     

Quality of care and outcomes of adults with asthma treated by specialists and generalists in managed care.

BACKGROUND: The growth of managed health care in the United States has been accompanied by controls on access to specialty physician services. We examined the relationship of physician specialty to treatment and outcomes of patients with asthma in managed care plans. METHODS: We conducted a mail survey of adult asthma patients who were enrolled in 12 managed care organizations and had at least 2 contacts for asthma (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 493.x) during the previous 24 months; we also surveyed their treating physicians. This report concerns 1954 patients and their 1078 corresponding physicians. Treatment indicators included use of corticosteroid inhalers, use of peak flow meters, allergy evaluation, discussion of triggers, and patient self-management knowledge. Outcome measures included canceled activities, hospitalization or emergency department visits, asthma attacks, workdays lost, asthma symptoms, physical and mental health, overall satisfaction with asthma care, and satisfaction with communication with physicians and nurses. RESULTS: Significant differences were noted for patients of specialists and experienced generalists compared with those of generalist physicians. Peak flow meter possession was reported by 41.9% of patients of generalists, 51.7% of patients of experienced generalists, and 53.8% of patients of pulmonologists or allergists. Compared with patients of generalists, outcomes were significantly better for patients of allergists with regard to canceled activities, hospitalizations and emergency department visits for asthma, quality of care ratings, and physical functioning. Patients of pulmonologists were more likely to rate improvement in symptoms as very good or excellent. CONCLUSIONS: In a managed health care setting, physicians' specialty training and self-reported expertise in treating asthma were related to better patient-reported care and outcomes.     

Asthma management: are GINA guidelines appropriate for daily clinical practice?

An international group of primary care asthma experts, as well as pulmonologists and allergists from Europe and the US, met to discuss asthma management focused on the primary care office. This paper summarizes their discussions. Accuracy of diagnosis and appropriateness of treatment is variable depending on the clinical circumstances and patient group. The value of classifying patients based on baseline or static asthma severity scores remains controversial, and asthma management decisions based on symptom control appear to have greater practical utility in a primary care setting. Furthermore, it must be recognized that patients, caregivers and physicians may have differing, and possibly conflicting, goals for therapy. There are many initiatives to improve the quality of asthma management, for example, primary care-focused guidelines being developed by the International Primary Care Respiratory Group, and several groups are working on asthma control scores. In addition, new therapies may improve the options available for increasing compliance and reducing side effects. In conclusion, asthma management should be patient-focused, with outcomes relevant to improving the quality of life for people with asthma.     

Persistent Asthma: Patient Characteristics, Courses of Asthma, and Utility of Salmeterol

Applications of National Asthma and Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma may reduce the morbidity of this disorder. Medical records and questionnaires from a series of 177 outer-city adolescents and adults with persistent asthma were audited according to NAEPP guidelines and for utility of salmeterol (Serevent®). Allergic sensitivity and exposure to indoor allergens house-dust mite (66% of patients), fungi (42%), cat (20%) and/or dog (14%) were of dominant importance to persistent asthma. Patients who continued salmeterol over 1 year had reduced severity of disease, improved forced expiratory flow at 25%-75% of vital capacity, and reduced usage of systemic, but not inhaled, corticosteroid.     

A national survey of asthma knowledge and practices among specialists and primary care physicians.

Asthma is a chronic disorder that causes significant morbidity and mortality and requires ongoing chronic care. Approximately two-thirds of people with asthma are receiving care from a primary care clinician, such as an internist, family practitioner, nurse practitioner, or pediatrician. The other one-third of patients are obtaining treatment and ongoing care from specialists, including allergists or pulmonologists. The outcomes of asthma care are a subject of intense investigation. Many studies focus on pharmacotherapy, allergen control, and asthma education as interventions to reduce the morbidity and costs associated with asthma. Fewer studies have explored the differences in outcomes between asthmatic patients cared for by specialists compared with generalists. Even fewer have explored the practice differences between generalists and specialists that may relate to outcomes of care. With the advent of national asthma guidelines and the high prevalence of asthma seen in primary care settings, it is important to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of primary care physicians with regard to asthma.     

Asthma control and differences in management practices across seven European countries

Failure to follow asthma management guidelines may result in poor asthma control for many patients. The Asthma Insights and Reality in Europe (AIRE) survey, a multi-national survey assessing the level of asthma control from the patients perspective in seven Western European countries, previously demonstrated that the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guideline goals were not achieved in Western Europe and that both adults and children with asthma were poorly controlled. Using additional data on asthma management practices from each of the seven countries in the AIRE survey, we compared variations in asthma morbidity and asthma management practices across countries to provide insight into the reasons for poor asthma control. Asthma management practices and asthma control among adults and children with current asthma were suboptimal in each of seven countries surveyed. Among patients with symptoms of severe persistent asthma, over 40% reported their asthma was well or completely controlled. School absence due to asthma was reported by upto 52.7% of children and up to 27.6% of adult reported work absence due to asthma. Lung function testing in the past year was uncommon: ranging from 13.5% of children in the U.K. to 68.8% of adults in Germany. Written asthma management plans were used by less than 50% of adults and less than 61% of children in all seven countries. Most adults (49.5-73.0%) and a large proportion of children (38.4-70.6%) had follow-up visits for their asthma only when problems developed. The ratio of recent inhaled corticosteroid use to recent short-acting beta-agonist use was inappropriate (<1) among patients with symptoms of severe asthma in all countries. This disparity was greatest among adults in Italy and France, where recent inhaled corticosteroid use was reported by less than one in nine patients reporting recent use of short-acting bronchodialators (IS:SAB <0.11). Management practices differ between countries and additional public health interventions and resources may be necessary to reduce patient suffering. Further efforts to fully implement asthma management guidelines are required to improve asthma control in Europe.     

Attitudes of physicians toward objective measures of airway function in asthma

BACKGROUND: The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) recommends pulmonary function testing as part of asthma evaluation. The objectives of this study were to determine the use of spirometry in patients with asthma by primary care physicians and asthma specialists, and to identify barriers to use of spirometry. METHODS: We developed, validated, and administered a mailed survey to primary care physicians and asthma specialists in the general community. We asked about the use of spirometry, access to spirometry, and barriers to spirometry use. RESULTS: Of 975 eligible subjects, 672 (69%) completed the survey. Asthma specialists were more likely to have an office spirometer (78% [216/277] vs. 43% [169/395], P <0.001) than were primary care physicians, and more likely to report measuring pulmonary function in at least 75% of their patients with asthma (83% [223/270] vs. 34% [131/388], P <0.001). In logistic regression analysis, factors most strongly associated with reported spirometry use (in at least 75% of patients) among asthma specialists were owning a spirometer, disagreeing with the statement that the test requires excessive use of office resources, and agreeing that spirometry is a necessary part of the asthma evaluation. Among primary care physicians, owning a spirometer, agreeing that the data are necessary for accurate diagnosis, and believing that they were trained to perform and interpret the test were most strongly associated with reported spirometry use. CONCLUSION: Pulmonary function testing is underutilized by physicians, with rates of utilization lowest among primary care physicians. Providing primary care physicians with better access to spirometry, through provision of a machine and appropriate training in its use and interpretation, may improve compliance with the NAEPP recommendations.     

Detection of Undiagnosed and Poorly Controlled Asthma in a Hospital-Based Outpatient Pediatric Primary Care Clinic Using a Health Risk Assessment System

Objective. To determine the rate of undiagnosed and poorly controlled asthma detected by a computerized health risk assessment (HRA) survey system in an urban pediatric hospital-based outpatient teaching clinic. Methods. A software-based HRA system uses survey answer patterns to identify children with (1) probable, (2) uncontrolled, and (3) moderate to severe asthma. Parents of patients > 2 years of age were asked by clinic staff to complete the touch screen computer survey before seeing their physician from August 2005 through July 2006. Results. The HRA survey predicted 26% (282/1,098) to have probable asthma. Of these, 51% (144/282) were controlled and the parents reported a previous diagnosis of asthma; 14% (40/282) were controlled and the parents did not report a previous diagnosis of asthma; 25% (71/282) were uncontrolled and the parents reported a previous diagnosis of asthma; and 10% (27/282) were uncontrolled and no previous diagnosis of asthma was reported by the parents. Among active cases completing the baseline version survey (N = 217), 68% reported emergency department (ED) visits / hospitalizations in the last 2 years (44% > 2), while 59% reported missed school days during the previous year (23% > 5 days). Impairment, as defined by the 2007 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NHLBI/NAEPP) asthma guidelines, tended to be higher in patients without a previous diagnosis of asthma, per parental report, but this trend only achieved significance in two measures: daytime symptoms > 2 days per week in the last 4 weeks (p = 0.028) and more than 5 missed school days in the past year (p = 0.001). Conclusion. A previously validated HRA system can consistently identify a high rate of undiagnosed and poorly controlled asthma in an urban pediatric hospital–based teaching clinic. The utility of such a system would be to reduce missed opportunities for delivery of care and morbidity for the patients who currently have undiagnosed and/or uncontrolled asthma in the pediatric primary care outpatient setting.