4.2 Article

Inhaler technique mastery and maintenance in healthcare professionals trained on different devices

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASTHMA
Volume 55, Issue 1, Pages 79-88

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02770903.2017.1310227

Keywords

Asthma; clinical trial; device mastery; device mastery maintenance; dry powder inhaler; handling errors

Funding

  1. Research in Real Life Ltd
  2. Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are required to assess and train patients in the correct use of inhalers but are often unable to demonstrate correct technique themselves. We sought to assess the level of training required for HCPs to master and maintain device mastery when using two different dry powder inhalers (DPIs). Methods: We conducted a randomized, un-blinded, crossover study in undergraduate HCPs who undertook a six-step training procedure (intuitive use, patient information leaflet, instructional video, individual tuition from expert, then two repeats of individual tuition) for the use of Turbuhaler (R) (an established device) and Spiromax (R) (a newer device, reportedly easier to use). Device mastery (absence of errors) was evaluated by expert assessors at each training step. Maintenance of mastery was assessed 4 +/- 1 week (visit 2) and 8 +/- 2 weeks (visit 3) after initial training (visit 1). Results: Of 516 eligible participants, 113 (22%) demonstrated device mastery prior to training on Spiromax (R) compared with 20 (4%) on Turbuhaler (R) (p < 0.001). The median number of training steps required to achieve mastery was 2 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-4) for Spiromax (R) and 3 (IQR 24) for Turbuhaler (R) (p < 0.001). A higher number of participants maintained mastery with Spiromax (R) compared with Turbuhaler (R), at visits 2 and 3 (64% vs 41% and 79% vs 65%, respectively; p < 0.001). Conclusions: There are significant differences in the nature and extent of training required to achieve and maintain mastery for Spiromax (R) and Turbuhaler (R) devices. The implications on clinical practice, device education delivery, and patient outcomes require further evaluation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available