Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
U N Premaratne a Department of Public Health
Sciences, King's College London, Capital House, London SE1 3QD, b Institute of Respiratory Medicine, University of Sydney, New
South Wales 2006, Australia, c Asthma Resource Centre,
Greenwich District Hospital, Greenwich, London SE10 9HE
Correspondence to:
Professor Burney Peter.burney{at}kcl.ac.uk
Objectives:
To evaluate the effectiveness
of an asthma resource centre in improving treatment and quality of life
for asthmatic patients.
Design:
Community based randomised controlled trial.
Setting:
41 general practices in Greenwich with a
practice nurse.
Subjects:
All registered patients aged 15-50 years.
Intervention:
Nurse specialists in asthma who educated
and supported practice nurses, who in turn educated patients in the management of asthma according to the British Thoracic Society's guidelines.
Main outcome measures:
Quality of life of asthmatic
patients, attendance at accident and emergency departments, admissions
to local hospitals, and steroid prescribing by general practitioners.
Results:
Of 24 400 patients randomly
selected and surveyed in 1993, 12 238 replied; 1621 were asthmatic of
whom 1291 were sent a repeat questionnaire in 1996 and 780 replied. Of
24 400 patients newly surveyed in 1996, 10 783 (1616 asthmatic)
replied. No evidence was found for an improvement in asthma related
quality of life among newly surveyed patients in intervention practices compared with control practices. Neither was there evidence of an
improvement in other measures of the quality of asthma care. Weak
evidence was found for an improvement in quality of life in
intervention practices among asthmatics registered with study practices
in 1993 and followed up in 1996. Neither attendances at accident and
emergency departments nor admissions for asthma showed any tendency to
diverge in intervention and control practices over the study period.
Steroid prescribing rates rose steadily during the study period. The
average annual increase in steroid prescribing was 3% per year higher
in intervention than control practices (95% confidence interval
1%
to 6%, P=0.10).
Conclusions:
This model of service delivery is not
effective in improving the outcome of asthma in the community. Further
development is required if cost effective management of asthma is to be introduced.
Key messages
Read all Rapid Responses