B Smith

Bio: B Smith is an academic researcher from University of Dundee. The author has contributed to research in topics: Audit & Asthma. The author has an hindex of 8, co-authored 15 publications receiving 365 citations.

Risk factors and costs associated with an asthma attack

Abstract: Background—A study was undertaken to identify asthma patients at risk of an attack and to assess the economic impact of treatment strategies. Methods—A retrospective cohort analysis of a representative data set of 12 203 patients with asthma in the UK over a one year period was performed. Logistic multiple regression was used to model the probability of an attack occurring using a set of categorised predictor factors. Health service costs were calculated by applying published average unit costs to the patient resource data. The main outcome measures were attack incidence, health service resource use, drug treatment, and cost estimates for most aspects of asthma related health care. Results—Children under five years of age accounted for 597 patients (5%), 3362 (28%) were aged 5‐15 years, 4315 (35%) 16‐44, 3446 (28%) 45‐74, and 483 (4%) were aged over 74 years. A total of 9016 patients (74%) were on some form of prophylactic asthma medication; 2653 (22%) experienced an attack in the year data collection occurred. Overall health care expenditure was estimated at £2.04 million. The average cost per patient who had an attack was £381 compared with £108 for those who did not, an increase of more than 3.5 times. In those aged under five and those over 75 years of age there were no significant markers to identify risk, but both groups were small in size. The level of treatment step in the British Thoracic Society (BTS) asthma guidelines was a statistically significant factor for all other age groups. Night time symptoms were significant in the 5‐15, 16‐44 and 45‐74 age groups, exercise induced symptoms were only significant for the 5‐15 age group, and poor inhaler technique in the 16‐44 age group. Conclusions—Patients at any treatment step of the BTS asthma guidelines are at risk of an asthma attack, the risk increasing as the treatment step increases. Poorly controlled asthma may have a considerable impact on health care costs. Appropriate targeting of preventive measures could therefore reduce overall health care costs and the growing pressures on hospital services associated with asthma management. (Thorax 2000;55:19‐24)

How general practitioners manage acute asthma attacks.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The management of asthma attacks by general practitioners in 1992/93 was compared with 1991/92 in relation to recommended guidelines. METHODS: The findings from a postal survey of 299 UK general practitioners who managed 2332 patients with an asthma attack in 1992/93 were compared with those from 218 practitioners who managed 1805 attacks in 1991/92. Management by a subgroup of practitioners from a special interest group was analysed separately. RESULTS: In 1992/93 2031 (87%) of attacks were managed entirely by general practitioners, 251 (11%) were referred for admission to hospital, and 50 (2%) were managed by an accident and emergency department. There was no change in the pattern of management relative to 1991/92. Compared with recommended guidelines there was underuse of systemic steroids and nebulised bronchodilators. Between 1991/92 and 1992/93 use of systemic steroids in acute attacks increased from 56% to 71%, nebulised bronchodilators from 31% to 32%, and an increase in prophylactic medication after an acute attack from 41% to 49%. Contrary to guidelines, antibiotic use increased from 32% to 40% of attacks. Practitioners from a special interest asthma group gave more of their patients systemic steroids and nebulised bronchodilators both in 1991/92 and 1992/93. CONCLUSIONS: Some aspects of the management of asthma attacks by general practitioners has changed in line with guidelines, but there is still a large gap between actual and recommended management.

Observations on the structure, process and clinical outcomes of asthma care in general practice.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: There is a need to establish whether the structure of asthma care in general practice is associated with measures of process and with primary and secondary care clinical outcomes. Debate about how to resource general practice asthma care is hampered by a lack of observational data from throughout the United Kingdom (UK). AIM: To observe whether the present system of family health services authority (FHSA) accreditation of asthma clinics, based on measures of structure, is associated with measures of process or clinical outcome. METHOD: Two hundred and twenty-five UK practitioners enrolled in a project and recorded details of how they organized asthma care. Data from 6732 patients, concerning general practitioner and nurse consultations, asthma attacks, symptom control, emergency treatments and hospital attendances covering a 12-month period, were also provided. RESULTS: FHSA approval for a chronic disease management (CDM) asthma clinic was associated with favourable patterns of structure and process, but not of clinical outcome. Practice audit and the employment of a nurse with an asthma diploma were associated with favourable patterns of structure, process and clinical outcome. Practices (n = 143) that had recently audited asthma patient care (n = 4259) had fewer patients who had attended an accident and emergency department [121 (3%): 96 (4%), odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.83] or a hospital outpatients department [247 (6%): 180 (7%), 1.28, 1.04-1.56], or who had respiratory symptoms on assessment [2400 (56%): 1465 (59%), 1.34, 1.18-1.52] or days absent from work or school in the past 12 months [375 (9%): 296 (12%), 1.48, 1.25-1.74] than those that had not (82 practices, 2473 patients). CONCLUSION: Findings from a large UK sample of practices are subject to participant bias and show association rather than causal links. The present FHSA asthma CDM accreditation system, based on structure, is not associated with favourable clinical outcomes. This opens the debate as to whether accreditation should be linked to recent experience of audit, which does appear to be associated with favourable clinical outcomes.

Do self-management plans reduce morbidity in patients with asthma?

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Self-management plans may help patients with asthma intervene when symptoms deteriorate, thus preventing asthma attacks. AIM: A study set out to test whether a self-management plan tailored to the circumstances of the individual reduces morbidity from asthma. METHOD: General practitioners who had participated in a national audit of asthma attacks were randomized into intervention and control groups. Six months after the intervention group had issued self-management plans to patients with asthma, both groups of practitioners completed morbidity questionnaires on patients. Morbidity outcomes were compared for the 6-month periods before and after the issue of the plans. RESULTS: In the 6 months before the study, the 376 patients enrolled by the intervention group experienced higher levels of morbidity than the 530 patients for whom details were recorded by the control group. In the 6 months after the issue of the plans, control group patients showed little change in levels of morbidity, but intervention group patients showed significant reductions in hospital admissions, consultations for asthma symptoms, asthma review consultations, courses of oral steroids and use of emergency nebulized bronchodilators. CONCLUSION: General practitioners appeared to operate enthusiast bias' and issued more self-management plans to patients with uncontrolled asthma. The reduction in morbidity in this group is probably a result of the use of the plans, but the verdict on whether plans reduce morbidity must be deemed 'not proven'.

British guideline on the management of asthma: A national clinical guideline

Abstract: These guidelines have been replaced by British Guideline on the Management of Asthma. A national clinical guideline. Superseded By 2012 Revision Of 2008 Guideline: British Guideline on the Management of Asthma. Thorax 2008 May; 63(Suppl 4): 1–121.

Self-management education and regular practitioner review for adults with asthma

Abstract: Background A key component of many asthma management guidelines is the recommendation for patient education and regular medical review. A number of controlled trials have been conducted to measure the effectiveness of asthma education programmes. These programmes improve patient knowledge, but their impact on health outcomes is less well established. This review was conducted to examine the strength of evidence supporting Step 6 of the Australian Asthma Management Plan: "Educate and Review Regularly"; to test whether health outcomes are influenced by education and self-management programmes. Objectives The objective of this review was to assess the effects of asthma self-management programmes, when coupled with regular health practitioner review, on health outcomes in adults with asthma. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reference lists of articles. Selection criteria Randomised trials of self-management education in adults over 16 years of age with asthma. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data independently. We contacted study authors for confirmation. Main results We included thirty six trials, which compared self-management education with usual care. Self-management education reduced hospitalisations (relative risk (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.82); emergency room visits (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.94); unscheduled visits to the doctor (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.81); days off work or school (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.93); nocturnal asthma (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.0.56 to 0.79); and quality of life (standard mean difference 0.29,CI 0.11 to 0.47). Measures of lung function were little changed. Authors' conclusions Education in asthma self-management which involves self-monitoring by either peak expiratory flow or symptoms, coupled with regular medical review and a written action plan improves health outcomes for adults with asthma. Training programmes that enable people to adjust their medication using a written action plan appear to be more effective than other forms of asthma self-management.