4.5 Article

COPD health care in Sweden - A study in primary and secondary care

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 104, 期 3, 页码 404-411

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2009.10.007

关键词

COPD; Health care; Asthma/COPD nurse; Exacerbation

资金

  1. AstraZeneca, Sweden

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To map out-patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) with special reference to patients suffering from acute exacerbations, and to describe COPI) health care structure and process in Swedish clinical. practice in a real life setting. Design: Retrospective, non-interventional, epidemiological survey. Setting: 141 hospital based out patient clinics (OPC, n = 30) and primary health care clinics (PC, n = 111) were included in the structure evaluation. Subjects: 1004 COPI) diagnosed patients from 100 of the centres (OPC, n = 26) participated in the process evaluation. Methods: All Swedish OPC (n = 40) and a random sample of 180 PC were asked to answer a questionnaire regarding COPI) care. In addition, data from 10 randomly selected patients with a documented COPI) disease were analysed from the centres. Results: Spirometers were available at all OPCs and at 99% of the PCs. Spirometry had been performed in 52% of PC-patients and in 89% of OPC-patients during the last 2 years prior to the study. More severe patients, as judged by investigator and lung function data, were treated at OPCs than at PCs. Physiotherapists, occupational therapists and dieticians were available at >80% of centres. Exacerbation rate was higher at PCs without a specialized nurse, 2.2/year versus 0.9/year at centres with a specialized nurse. Conclusions: Special attention to COPD, marked by a specialised nurse in primary care improves the quality, as assessed by a tower number of exacerbations. The structure of COPD care in Sweden for diagnosed individuals seems satisfactory, but could be improved mainly through higher availability and educational activities. (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据