Novel study design to assess the utility of the copd assessment test in a primary care setting

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Paul Jones⁸  David Leather¹  Gilbert Nadeau¹  June Roberts²  Roberto Dal Negro³  Roger Escamilla⁶  Peter Kardos⁷  Steve Holmes⁵  Helen Marsden¹  Kevin Gruffydd-Jones⁴ 

[1] Respiratory Centre of Excellence, GlaxoSmithKline, London, United Kingdom;Salford Royal Hospital Foundation Trust, Salford, United Kingdom;Ospedale Civile Orlandi di Bussolengo, Bussolengo, Italy;Box Surgery, Box, Corsham, United Kingdom;The Park Medical Practice, Shepton Mallet, United Kingdom;Hôpital Larrey- CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France;Gemeinschaftspraxis und Zentrum für Pneumologie, Allergologie, Schlafmedizin, Frankfurt, Germany;St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom

关键词: Videoed assessment;    Primary care consultation;    CAT;    COPD;   

Others  :  1109769
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-13-63

 received in 2012-10-12, accepted in 2013-04-22,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

The quality of a consultation provided by a physician can have a profound impact on the quality of care and patient engagement in treatment decisions. When the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) was developed, one of its aims was to aid the communication between physician and patient about the impact of COPD. We developed a novel study design to assess this in a primary care consultation.

Primary care physicians across five countries in Europe conducted videoed consultations with six standardised COPD patients (played by trained actors) which had patient-specific issues that the physician needed to identify through questioning. Half the physicians saw the patients with the completed CAT, and half without. Independent assessors scored the physicians on their ability to identify and address the patient-specific issues, review standard COPD aspects, their understanding of the case and their overall performance. This novel study design presented many challenges which needed to be addressed to achieve an acceptable level of robustness to assess the utility of the CAT. This paper discusses these challenges and the measures adopted to eliminate or minimise their impact on the study results.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Gruffydd-Jones et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Coulter A, Ellins J: Patient-focused interventions: A review of the evidence. Oxford, UK: Picker Institute Europe; Health Foundation; 2006.
• [2]Freeman G, Horder JP, Howie JGR, Hungin AP, Hill AP, Shah NC, Wilson A: Evolving general practice consultation in Britain: issues of length and context. BMJ 2002, 324:880-882.
• [3]Barry CA, Bradlet CP, Britten N, Stevenson FA, Barber N: Patients’ unvoiced agendas in general practice consultations: qualitative study. BMJ 2000, 320:1246-1250.
• [4]Jones P, Harding G, Wiklund I, Berry P, Leidy N: Improving the process and outcome of care in COPD: development of a standardised assessment tool. Prim Care Resp J 2009, 18:208-215.
• [5]Jones PW, Harding G, Berry P, Wiklund I, Chen W-H, Leidy NK: Development and first validation of the COPD Assessment Test. Eur Respir J 2009, 34:648-654.
• [6]Jones P, Harding G, Wiklund I, Berry P, Tabberer M, Yu R, Leidy NK: Tests of the Responsiveness of the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Assessment Test™ (CAT) following acute exacerbation and pulmonary rehabilitation. Chestin press
• [7]Levine MN, Ganz PA: Beyond the development of quality of life instruments: Where do we go from here? J Clin Oncol 2002, 20:2215-2216.
• [8]Greenhalgh J, Long A, Flynn R: The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: lack of impact or lack of theory. Soc Sci Med 2005, 60:833-843.
• [9]Kocks JWH, Kerstjens HAM, Snijders SL, de Vos B, Biermann JJ, van Hengel P, Strijbos JH, Bosveld HEP, van der Molen T: Health status in routine clinical practice: validity of the clinical COPD questionnaire at the individual patient level. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010, 8:135. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Pendleton D, Tate ST, Havelock PP: The Consultation - An approach to learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993.
• [11]Efraimsson EO, Klang B, Larsson K, Ehrenberg A, Fossum B: Communication and self-management education at nurse-led COPD clinics in primary health care. Patient Educ Couns 2009, 77:209-217.
• [12]Howie JGR, Heaney D, Maxwell M: Quality, core values and the general practice consultation: issues of definition, measurement and delivery. Fam Pract 2004, 21:458-468.
• [13]Mauksch LB, Dugdale DC, Dobson S, Epstein RM: Relationship, communication and efficiency in the medical encounter. Arch Intern Med 2008, 168:1387-1395.
• [14]Brown RF, Butow PN, Henman M, Dunn SM, Boyle F, Tattersall MHN: Responding to the active and passive patient: flexibility is the key. Health Expect 2006, 5:236-245.
• [15]Gerner B, Sanci L, Cahill H, Ukoumunne OC, Gold L, Rogers L, McCallum Z, Wake M: Using simulated patients to develop doctors’ skills in facilitating behaviour change: addressing childhood obesity. Med Educ 2010, 44:706-715.
• [16]Abdel-Tawab R, James DH, Fichtinger A, Clatworthy J, Horne R, Davies G: Development and validation of the Medication-Related Consultation Framework (MRCF). Patient Educ Couns 2011, 83:451-457.
• [17]Benzing JM, Dronkers J: Instrumental and affective aspects of physician behaviour. Med Care 1992, 30:283-297.
• [18]Mercer SW, Howie JGR: CQI-2 – a new measure of holistic interpersonal care in primary care consultations. Br J Gen Pract 2006, 56:262-268.
• [19]Lurie SJ, Mooney CJ, Nofziger AC, Meldrum SC, Epstein RM: Further challenges in measuring communication skills: accounting for actor effects in standardised patient assessments. Med Educ 2008, 42:662-668.
• [20]Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD): Global Strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of COPD. 2011. Available from http://www.goldcopd.org/ webcite