Reducing emergency department visits utilizing a primary care asthma specialty clinic in a high-risk patient population

Objective: Asthma is a leading cause of pediatric emergency department (ED) use. Optimizing asthma outcomes is a goal of Nationwide Children's Hospital (NCH) and its affiliated Accountable Care Organization. NCH's Primary Care Network, comprised of 12 offices serving a predominantly Medicaid population, sought to determine whether an Asthma Specialty Clinic (ASC) operated within a single primary care office could reduce ED asthma rates and improve quality measures, relative to all other network offices. Methods: An ASC was piloted with four components: patient monitoring, provider continuity, standardized assessment, and multi-disciplinary education. A registry was established to contact patients at recommended intervals. At extended-length visits, a general pediatrician evaluated patients and a multi-disciplinary team provided education. Novel educational tools were utilized, guideline-based templates recorded and spirometry obtained. ED asthma rate, spirometry utilization, and controller fills by intervention office patients were compared to all other network offices before and after ASC initiation. Results: At baseline, asthma ED visits by intervention and usual care populations were similar (p = 0.43). After, rates were significantly lower for intervention office patients versus usual care office patients (p < 0.001), declining in the intervention population by 26.2%, 25.2%, and 31.8% in 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively, from 2012 baseline, versus increases of 3.8%, 16.2%, and 9.5% in the usual care population. Spirometry completion, controller fills, and patients with favorable Asthma Medication Ratios significantly increased for intervention office patient relative to the usual care population. Conclusions: A primary care-based asthma clinic was associated with a significant and sustainable reduction in ED utilization versus usual care. What's new: This study describes a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary, and innovative model for an asthma management program within the medical home that demonstrated a significant reduction in ED visits, an increase in spirometry utilization, and an increase in controller fills in a high-risk asthma population versus comparison group.     

The reliability and utility of spirometry performed on people with asthma in community pharmacies

Objective: To investigate the reliability and the utility of spirometry generated by community pharmacists participating in two large asthma intervention trials of 892 people. Methods: The Pharmacy Asthma Care Program (PACP) and the Pharmacy Asthma Management Service (PAMS) involved up to four visits to the pharmacy over 6 months for counseling and goal setting. Pharmacists performed spirometry according to ATS/ERS guidelines to inform management. The proportion of A–E, F quality tests, as per EasyOne? QC grades, were recorded. Lung function results between visits and for participants referred/not referred to their general practitioner on the basis of spirometry were compared. Results: Complete data from 2593 spirometry sessions were recorded, 68.5% of spirometry sessions achieved three acceptable tests with between-test repeatability of 150?ml or less (A or B quality), 96% of spirometry sessions included at least one test that met ATS/ERS acceptability criteria. About 39.1% of participants had FEV₁/FVC values below the lower limit of normal (LNN), indicating a respiratory obstruction. As a result of the service, there was a significant increase in FEV₁ and FEV₁/FVC and asthma control. Lung function values were significantly poorer for participants referred to their general practitioner, compared with those not referred, on the basis of spirometry. Conclusions: Community pharmacists are able to reliably achieve spirometry results meeting ATS/ERS guidelines in people with asthma. Significant improvements in airway obstruction were demonstrated with the pharmacy services. Pharmacists interpreted lung function results to identify airway obstruction for referral, making this a useful technique for review of people with asthma in the community.     

Improving pediatric asthma care: A partnership between pediatric primary care clinics and a free-standing Children's Hospital

Background: Asthma is a common chronic disease of childhood. Providers’ adherence to asthma guidelines is still less than optimal. Objectives: To determine if an Asthma Education Program aimed at primary care practices can improve asthma care within practices and if the results vary by duration of the program. Methods: Ten practices were randomly assigned to an Early Asthma Education Intervention (EI) group or a Delayed Asthma Education Intervention (DI) group. The EI group received the intervention for 12 months and was monitored for 6 additional months. The DI group was observed without intervention for 12 months, then received the intervention for 6 months, and was monitored for 6 additional months. The program included training of asthma educators in each practice and then monitoring for improvement in medical record documentation of National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) asthma quality indicators by blinded random review of patient charts. Results: In the EI group, 6-, 12-, and 18-month data revealed significant improvement in documentation of asthma severity, education, action plan, night time symptoms, and symptoms with exercise compared to baseline and compared to DI group at baseline and at the 12-month interval. In the DI group, significant improvement in documentation in all of the above endpoints and also in documentation of NAEPP treatment guidelines was noted at 18 and 24 months. In both groups, documentation levels remained relatively stable at 6 months after the intervention, with no significant differences between groups. While improved, guideline adherence was <80% for half of the indicators. Conclusion: In-office training of non-physician asthma providers improves the quality of asthma care.     

Short-term effectiveness of an asthma educational program: results of a randomized controlled trial

Asthma educational programs have been shown to reduce the use of emergency room, frequency of severe asthma attacks and hospitalization. However, its effectiveness in other morbidity parameters and on quality of life has yet to be fully understood. This prospective randomized control trial evaluated the effectiveness of a patient education program in 77 asthmatics according to "Teach Your Patients About Asthma: A Clinicians Guide" (1992). Forty asthmatic patientswere randomly allocated to Group A (usual treatment) and 37 to Group B (usual treatment plus a patient education program).The effectiveness of the educational program was evaluated by comparing morbidity outcomes at baseline and 3 months after initial evaluation. At enrolment, the two groups were not different with regard to age, sex, smoking, asthma severity atopy, FEV1, symptom-free days, use of rescue salbutamol and quality of life. Three months later, subjects in Group B showed a significant improvement in the overall quality of life (p < 0.01) and in the "Symptoms"domain (p < 0.01). None of the other parameters (use of rescue salbutamol, symptom-free days, days absent from work or school, FEV1) showed any significant change. After stratification for asthma severity, only subjects with moderate-to-severe asthma showed a significant improvement inthe overall qualityof life (p < 0.05) and in the "Symptoms" (p < 0.01) and 'Activities" (< 0.05) domains. Moreover, in subjects with moderate-to-severe asthma FEV1 value at the 3rd month of follow-up was higher in Group B than in Group A (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the educational program improved the quality of life in asthratic subjects, mainly in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.     

Comparison of Asthma Control Criteria: Importance of Spirometry

Aims. To compare the measurements of asthma control using Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) Asthma Management Consensus Summary and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines composite indices with and without spirometry. Methods. Asthma control parameters were extracted from electronic medical records (EMRs) of patients ≥6 years old at two primary care sites. Asthma control ratings calculated according to CTS and GINA criteria were compared. Results. Data were available from 113 visits by 93 patients, aged 6–85 years (38.7 ± 24.8; mean ± SD). The proportion of visits at which individuals’ asthma was completely controlled was 22.1% for CTS symptoms only and 9.7% for CTS with spirometry (p < .01); and 17.7% versus 14.1% for GINA symptoms only versus symptoms with spirometry (p = .125). Conclusions. Asthma control ratings using GINA and CTS criteria are discordant in more than half of the patients deemed “in control” by at least one scale. Differences in the spirometry criterion threshold are primarily responsible for this discordance. Failure to include spirometry as part of the control index consistently overestimates asthma control and may underestimate future risk of exacerbations.     

Effectiveness of an asthma integrated care program on asthma control and adherence to inhaled corticosteroids

Objective: To measure the effectiveness of an integrated care program for individuals with asthma aged 12–45 years, on asthma control and adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Methods: Researchers used a theoretical model to develop the program and assessed effectiveness at 12 months, using a pragmatic controlled clinical trial design. Forty-two community pharmacists in Quebec, Canada recruited participants with either uncontrolled or mild-to-severe asthma. One group was exposed to the program; another received usual care. Asthma control was measured with the Asthma Control Questionnaire; ICS adherence was assessed with the Morisky medication adherence scale and the medication possession ratio. Program effectiveness was assessed with an intention-to-treat approach using multivariate generalized estimating equation models. Results: Among 108 exposed and 241 non-exposed, 52.2% had controlled asthma at baseline. At 12-months, asthma control had improved in both groups but the interaction between study groups and time was not significant (p?=?0.09). The proportion of participants with good ICS adherence was low at baseline. Exposed participants showed improvement in adherence and the interaction between study groups and time was significant (p?=?0.02). Conclusion: An integrated intervention, with healthcare professionals collaborating to optimize asthma control, can improve ICS adherence.     

Evaluation of the asthma control test: a reliable determinant of disease stability and a predictor of future exacerbations

Background and objective: This study assessed the asthma control test (ACT) cut‐off values for asthma control according to the Global Initiative for Asthma guideline in adults and the effectiveness of ACT scores in predicting exacerbations and serial changes in ACT scores over time in relation to treatment decisions. Methods: Subjects completed ACT together with same‐day spirometry and fractional concentration of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) measurement at baseline and at 3 months. Physicians, blinded to the ACT scores and FeNO values, assessed the patient's asthma control in the past month and adjusted the asthma medications according to management guidelines. Asthma exacerbations and urgent health‐care utilization (HCU) at 6 months were recorded. Results: Three hundred seventy‐nine (120 men) asthmatics completed the study. The ACT cut‐off for uncontrolled and partly controlled asthma were ≤19 (sensitivity 0.74, specificity 0.67, % correctly classified 69.5) and ≤22, respectively (sensitivity 0.73, specificity 0.71, % correctly classified 72.1). Baseline ACT score had an odds ratio of 2.34 (95% confidence interval: 1.48–3.69) and 2.66 (1.70–4.18) for urgent HCU and exacerbations, respectively, at 6 months (P < 0.0001). However, baseline FeNO and spirometry values had no association with urgent HCU and exacerbations. The 3‐month ACT score of ≤20 correlated best with step‐up of asthma medications (sensitivity 0.65, specificity 0.81, % correctly classified 72.8). For serial changes of ACT scores over 3 months, the cut‐off value was best at ≤3 for treatment decisions with low sensitivity (0.23) and % correctly classified (57.3%) values. Conclusions: Single measurement of ACT is useful for assessing asthma control, prediction of exacerbation and changes in treatment decisions.     

Trial of nurse-run asthma clinics based in general practice versus usual medical care

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the ability of nurse-run asthma clinics based in general practice compared with usual medical care to produce at least a moderate improvement in the quality of life of adults with asthma. METHODOLOGY: A randomized controlled trial involving 80 asthma clinic and 90 usual medical care asthma participants, aged 18 years and older was conducted in 11 general practices in Adelaide. The main outcome measure was the St George's respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ), from which quality-of-life scores were used to assess therapeutic benefit. Lung function measurements and health services utilization data were also collected. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-three participants (90%) were reviewed at follow up after 6-9 months. There was little difference between groups in baseline measures or for the 6-month follow-up outcomes, including the mean difference in total SGRQ scores (-0.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.0, 2.9) and the mean difference in percentage predicted FEV(1) (2.3%, 95% CI -0.7, 5.3 pre-bronchodilator; 0.4%, 95% CI -5.1, 5.9 post-bronchodilator). Trends in health services utilization were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-run asthma clinics based in general practice and usual medical care were similar in their effects on quality of life and lung function in adults. These findings cannot be generalized to hospital outpatients and other clinics that manage more severe asthmatic patients.     

Impact of shared decision making on asthma quality of life and asthma control among children

Objective: Few studies have examined the effectiveness of shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice. This study evaluated the impact of SDM on quality of life and symptom control in children with asthma. Methods: We conducted a prospective 3-year study in six community-based practices serving a low-income patient population. Practices received training on SDM using an evidence-based toolkit. Patients aged 2–17 with a diagnosis of asthma were identified from scheduling and billing data. At approximate 6-month intervals, patients completed a survey consisting of the Mini Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (range 1–7) and the control domain of the Pediatric Asthma Therapy Assessment Questionnaire (range 0–7). We used propensity scores to match 46 children receiving SDM to 46 children receiving usual care with decision support. Included children had completed a baseline survey and at least one follow-up survey. Random coefficient models incorporated repeated measures to assess the effect of SDM on asthma quality of life and asthma control. Results: The sample was primarily of non-White patients (94.6%) with Medicaid insurance (92.4%). Receipt of SDM using an evidence-based toolkit was associated with higher asthma quality of life [mean difference 0.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4–1.4] and fewer asthma control problems (mean difference ?0.9; 95% CI ?1.6–?0.2) compared to usual care with decision support. Conclusions: Implementation of SDM within clinical practices using a standardized toolkit is associated with improved asthma quality of life and asthma control for low-income children with asthma when compared to usual care with decision support.     

Feasibility and Effectiveness of an Evidence-Based Asthma Service in Australian Community Pharmacies: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial

Objective. To test the feasibility, effectiveness, and sustainability of a pharmacy asthma service in primary care. Methods. A pragmatic cluster randomized trial in community pharmacies in four Australian states/territories in 2009. Specially trained pharmacists were randomized to deliver an asthma service in two groups, providing three versus four consultations over 6 months. People with poorly controlled asthma or no recent asthma review were included. Follow-up for 12 months after service completion occurred in 30% of randomly selected completing patients. Outcomes included change in asthma control (poor and fair/good) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score, inhaler technique, quality of life, perceived control, adherence, asthma knowledge, and asthma action plan ownership. Results. Ninety-six pharmacists enrolled 570 patients, with 398 (70%) completing. Asthma control significantly improved with both the three- and four-visit service, with no significant difference between groups (good/fair control 29% and 21% at baseline, 61% and 59% at end, p = .791). Significant improvements were also evident in the ACQ (mean change 0.56), inhaler technique (17–33% correct baseline, 57–72% end), asthma action plan ownership (19% baseline, 56% end), quality of life, adherence, perceived control, and asthma knowledge, with no significant difference between groups for any variable. Outcomes were sustained at 12 months post-service. Conclusions. The pharmacy asthma service delivered clinically important improvements in both a three-visit and four-visit service. Pharmacists were able to recruit and deliver the service with minimal intervention, suggesting it is practical to implement in practice. The three-visit service would be feasible and effective to implement, with a review at 12 months.     

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.     

Patients' Expectations of Asthma Treatment

A multicomponent model has been developed to explain patients' unmet expectations of medical care. The model proposes that expectations are related to patients' personal experiences with illness, perceived vulnerability to disease, transmitted knowledge, and perceived severity of disease. The objective of this cross‐sectional study was to determine whether this model can be applied to patients' unrealistic expectations of treatment outcomes, specifically expecting to be cured of asthma. In total, 230 patients observed in a primary care practice in New York City were interviewed in person with open‐ended questions about their expectations of asthma treatment. Responses were analyzed with qualitative techniques to generate categories of expectations. Patients had a mean age of 41 ± 11 years, 21% were white, 30% African American, 42% Latino, and 7% other groups. Major categories of expectations were generated from patients' responses and included symptom relief (expected by 52%), cure (36%), improved physical function (21%), and improved psychological well‐being (15%). The category of expecting a cure was assessed with patients' responses to the following items representing components of the model: 1) resource utilization and medication requirements for asthma (representing severity of disease); 2) perceived quality of asthma care and satisfaction with care (representing past asthma experiences); 3) the Asthma Self‐Efficacy Scale (representing perceived vulnerability to exacerbations); and 4) experiences of social network contacts with asthma and the Check Your Asthma IQ survey (representing transmitted knowledge). In bivariate analysis, patients who expected a cure were more likely to be Latino or Native American or Asian (p = 0.02), to have never required oral corticosteroids (p = 0.004), to be dissatisfied with the status of their asthma (p = 0.008), to know others who were limited by asthma (p = 0.03), to have worse Asthma Self‐Efficacy Scale scores (p = 0.002), to have worse Check Your Asthma IQ scores (p = 0.04), and to currently be taking inhaled corticosteroids (p = 0.03). In multivariate analysis, worse asthma self‐efficacy (p = 0.008), never having required oral corticosteroids (p = 0.005), and currently taking inhaled corticosteroids (p = 0.05) remained associated with expecting a cure. As a result of this study, we found that patients have multiple expectations of asthma treatment, including realistic expectations such as symptom relief and improved function, as well as unrealistic expectations, specifically to be cured of asthma. A multicomponent model of patient and disease characteristics was associated with this unrealistic expectation. These findings indicate that clinicians can intervene in diverse areas to foster realistic expectations of treatment outcomes among asthma patients.     

A primary care-based asthma program improves recognition and treatment of persistent asthma in inner-city children compared to routine care

Objective: To examine whether a primary care-based asthma program that applies the Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR-3): Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma-2007 criteria to classify asthma severity increases detection of persistent asthma in inner-city children and affects “step of care” compared to routine care. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of 97 consecutive children referred to the asthma program from 2011–2013. Asthma severity documented during routine health care maintenance visits was compared to the asthma severity assessed during the asthma program visit using five standardized questions and spirometry. Medication plan “step of care” was compared pre- and post- the asthma program visit. Results: 79 children, ages 5–19 years old (mean = 9.6), had spirometry tracings meeting American Thoracic Society criteria and were included in this study. 53% were male. The majority of children were Latino (45.6%) or African American (35.4%). At the asthma program visit, more children were identified with moderate or severe persistent asthma based upon clinical questions (47.9%), spirometry (56.9%) or combined criteria (75.3%) than had been identified during routine care (15.2%); all p < .05. After the asthma program visit, more children were prescribed controller medications (82.3% vs 63.3%; p < .05) and 40.6% had their medication plan stepped up. Conclusions: In this population of inner-city children, asthma severity was under-recognized and undertreated during routine care. A primary care based asthma program, which formalized applying EPR-3 criteria, increased detection of persistent asthma and led to “step-ups” in treatment plans.     

Relationship between asthma control status, the Asthma Control Test™ and urgent health-care utilization in Asia

Background and objective: Accurate assessment of control is an integral part of asthma management. We investigated the relationship between control status derived from the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and urgent health‐care utilization. Methods: Asthma Insights and Reality in Asia‐Pacific Phase 2 (AIRIAP 2) was a cross‐sectional, community‐based survey of 4805 subjects with asthma from urban centres across Asia. A symptom control index was derived from the AIRIAP 2 questionnaire using the GINA control criteria for day‐ and night‐time symptoms, need for rescue medication, activity limitation and exacerbations; lung function was excluded. The main outcomes were asthma control, based on these GINA criteria and the ACT, and the relationship between control and self‐reported urgent health‐care utilization (hospitalization, emergency room visits or other unscheduled urgent visits) related to asthma over the previous 12 months. Results: Each of the symptom criteria was significantly associated with urgent health‐care utilization, with odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 2.25 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.94–2.61) for daytime symptoms to 2.57 (95% CI: 2.29–2.90) for nocturnal awakening. Similarly, control status was significantly associated with urgent health‐care utilization, with ORs of 0.19 (95% CI: 0.13–0.28), 0.70 (95% CI: 0.65–0.76) and 1.00 for controlled, partly controlled and uncontrolled, respectively. The optimal ACT cut‐off score for identifying uncontrolled asthma was ≤19 for subjects aged ≥12 years. Urgent health‐care utilization was reported by 57.2% versus 28.7% of patients scoring ≤19 versus >19 (P < 0.001). Conclusions: The GINA control classification and the ACT are valid symptom‐based measures that are significantly associated with urgent health‐care utilization.     

Asthma education: different viewpoints elicited by qualitative and quantitative methods

Objective: This project began as a qualitative examination of how asthma education provided by health professionals could be improved. Unexpected qualitative findings regarding the use of Asthma Action Plans and the importance of insurance reimbursement for asthma education prompted further quantitative examination.

Methods: Qualitative individual interviews were conducted with primary care physicians in private practice who routinely provide initial diagnoses of asthma and focus groups were conducted with other clinicians in private primary care practices who routinely provide asthma education. Using the DocStyles quantitative tool two questions regarding Asthma Action Plans and insurance reimbursement were asked of a representative sample of physicians and other clinicians.

Results: The utility of Asthma Action Plans was questioned in the 2012 qualitative study. Qualitative findings also raised questions regarding whether reimbursement is the barrier to asthma education for patients performed by medical professionals it is thought to be. 2013 quantitative findings show that the majority of clinicians see Asthma Action Plans as useful. The question of whether reimbursement is a barrier to providing asthma education to patients was not resolved by the quantitative data.

Conclusions: The majority of clinicians see Asthma Action Plans as a useful tool for patient education. Clinicians had less clear opinions on whether the lack of defined reimbursement codes acted as a barrier to asthma education. The study also provided useful audience data for design of new asthma educational tools developed by CDC.     

Improvement in Asthma Quality of Life in Patients Enrolled in a Prospective Study to Increase Lifestyle Physical Activity

Objective. Asthma patients know the benefits of exercise but often avoid physical activity because they are concerned that it will exacerbate asthma. The objective of this analysis was to assess longitudinal asthma status in 256 primary care patients in New York City enrolled in a trial to increase lifestyle physical activity. Methods. Patients were randomized to two protocols to increase physical activity during a period of 12 months. At enrollment, patients completed the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and received asthma self-management instruction through an evaluative test and workbook. Exercise and self-management were reinforced every 2 months. The AQLQ was repeated every 4 months and the ACQ was repeated at 12 months. Results. The mean age was 43 years and 75% were women. At 12 months there were clinically important increases in physical activity with no differences between groups; thus, data were pooled for asthma analyses. The enrollment AQLQ score was 5.0 ± 1.3 and increased to 5.9 ± 1.1 corresponding to a clinically important difference. Correlations between AQLQ and physical activity were approximately 0.35 (p < .0001) at each time point. In a mixed effects model, the variables associated with improvement in AQLQ scores over time were male sex, less severe asthma, not taking asthma maintenance medications, fewer depressive symptoms, and increased physical activity (all variables, p < .03). According to the ACQ, asthma was well controlled in 38% at enrollment and in 60% at 12 months (p < .0001). Conclusion. With attention to self-management, increased physical activity did not compromise asthma control and was associated with improved asthma.     

The prevalence of reversible airflow obstruction and/or methacholine hyperreactivity in random adult asthma patients identified by administrative data.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic inflammatory lung disease. It is commonly diagnosed and treated on the basis of clinical impression, although national guidelines recommend documenting reversible airflow obstruction. OBJECTIVES: Determine the frequency of reversible airflow obstruction, and/or methacholine hyperreactivity during 2003 in a well-characterized population with a low-risk asthma diagnosis during 2001. METHODS: Of a total population of 7460 low-risk adult (18-64 years) asthma patients (no hospitalizations or emergency department visits; < 3 oral steroid courses; < 12 beta-agonist canisters; and < 3 prescibers, all in prior 12 months) cared for by a large health care program, a random sample of 400 was recruited to undergo a diagnostic asthma evaluation. The evaluation included a physical examination, medical record review, questionnaires, allergy testing, spirometry for airflow obstruction and reversibility, and/or methacholine hyperreactivity. RESULTS: Of the 400 randomly selected patients, 106 (26.5%) started and 82 (77.3%) completed the asthma evaluation. Evaluated subjects were predominately female (71%), middle-aged (mean 51.0 +/- 11.0 years), diagnosed asthmatics for long duration (mean 22.1 +/- 17.5 years), and nonsmokers (88.7%). Asthma was confirmed in 62.1% (51 of 82) based on a deltaFEV1 12% or greater after albuterol (n = 38), deltaFEV1 15% or greater after Advair (n = 6), or a positive methacholine challenge (n = 7). Only 35 of 400 patients (8.7%) ever had reversibility measured in their medical record. Of these, only 12 (34.3%) had a deltaFEV1 12% or greater after albuterol. Reversibility was confirmed in all six who had asthma evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: More than one third of low-risk adult asthmatics cannot be confirmed to have asthma 2 years later. Spirometry that documented reversibility in the medical record accurately predicted asthma confirmation. Physicians should more widely perform spirometry with reversibility to establish the diagnosis of asthma as recommended by national asthma guidelines.