Documenting asthma severity: do we get it right?

BACKGROUND: The 1997 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) recommends a severity classification scheme to optimize the use of anti-inflammatory therapy for persistent asthma. Physician documentation of asthma severity is often used as a quality assurance measure. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that physician documentation of asthma severity is associated with appropriate use of anti-inflammatory therapy. DESIGN/METHODS: Setting: inner-city academic health center. First, we reviewed a consecutive sample of charts of scheduled pediatric patients. Then, we administered a structured parent survey regarding the child's asthma symptoms and current asthma therapy. We used NAEPP guidelines to classify patients' severity of asthma. The main outcome measure was appropriate use of anti-inflammatory therapy. Appropriate therapy was defined as: (1) mild persistent asthmatics using anti-inflammatory therapy, and (2) moderate-severe persistent asthmatics using inhaled steroids. Chart classification of asthma severity was compared with the NAEPP-applied classification. RESULTS: Of 784 charts, 214 (27%) were asthmatic. Of these, 176 (82%) were surveyed. The mean age was 7.4 years; 61% were males. Severity classification was documented in 77% of charts. Chart documentation differed significantly from survey classification for the same patients: (mild intermittent 54% vs. 40%, mild persistent 21% vs. 14%, moderate persistent 24% vs. 36%, severe persistent 1% vs. 10%; all p < .001). Correctly classified patients were more likely to be on appropriate therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians underestimated the severity classification of asthmatic patients. Incorrect classification was associated with inappropriate asthma therapy. These findings have implications for the institution of asthma quality improvement programs.     

Touch-Screen Computerized Education for Patients with Brain Injuries

The use of computer technology for patient education has increased in recent years. This article describes a study that measures the attitudes and perceptions of healthcare professionals and laypeople regarding the effectiveness of a multimedia computer, the Brain Injury Resource Center? (BIRC), as an educational tool. The study focused on three major themes: (a) usefulness of the information presented, (b) effectiveness of the multimedia touch-screen computer methodology, and (c) the appropriate time for making this resource available. This prospective study, conducted in an acute care medical center, obtained healthcare professionals' evaluations using a written survey and responses from patients with brain injury and their families during interviews. The findings have yielded excellent ratings as to the ease of understanding and usefulness of the BIRC. By using sight, sound, and touch, such a multimedia learning center has the potential to simplify patient and family education.     

Usher syndrome: clinical findings and gene localization studies

The issue of genetic heterogeneity is a critical problem in the localization of the gene(s) for Usher syndrome. Based on the data obtained on families studied to date, the differences between type I and type II Usher syndrome appear quite distinct with regard to auditory and vestibular function. Although the majority of families can be confidently diagnosed as typical type I or type II, clinical investigations revealed four families with findings that did not fit into either of the two more common subtypes. These findings emphasize the critical importance of an in-depth clinical analysis concomitant with the linkage investigation to assure accurate subtyping of Usher syndrome. Based on an analysis of only those families with definite type I or type II Usher syndrome, approximately 17% of the genome can be excluded as a potential site of the gene for type I, and 14% can be excluded as the site for the type II gene. This study will continue until the Usher gene(s) is successfully localized.     

Targeted routine asthma care in general practice using telephone triage

BACKGROUND: There is a high non-attendance rate for traditional clinic-based routine asthma care in general practice. Alternative methods of providing routine asthma care need to be examined. AIM: To examine the cost and effectiveness of targeted routine asthma care in general practice using telephone triage, compared to usual clinic care. DESIGN OF STUDY: An open randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A single semi-rural practice in the southwest of England. METHOD: Adult patients with asthma were randomised to receive either their routine asthma care in the surgery or care by telephone triage. Asthma control parameters, health status and NHS resource utilisation were measured over the 12-month study period. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-four patients were randomised and 35% per cent more patients (n = 84 versus n = 62) received more than one consultation in the telephone group. Asthma control as measured by the asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) was similar in the clinic and telephone groups: mean change in ACQ = -0.11 (95% CI = -0.32 to 0.11) versus -0.18 (95% CI = -0.38 to 0.02). Mean NHS costs were 210 pounds sterling per patient per year in the telephone group compared to 334 pounds sterling in the clinic group (P-value of bootstrapped difference = 0.071). CONCLUSION: Targeted routine asthma care by telephone triage of adult asthmatics can lead to more asthma patients being reviewed, at less cost per patient and without loss of asthma control compared to usual routine care in the surgery.