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.
Alan Jones a Department of General Practice, University of Wales
College of Medicine, Health Centre, Llanedeyrn, Cardiff CF26 9PN, b School of Social Sciences and
International Development, University of Swansea, Swansea SA2 8PP
Correspondence
to: A Jones, Princess St Surgery, Gorseinon, Swansea SA4 2US research{at}gors.freeserve.co.uk
| |
Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Objectives:
To explore the views held by general
practitioners, practice nurses, and patients about the role of guided
self management plans in asthma care.
Asthma has a considerable impact on domestic, school, and
industrial life as well as primary care workload. This, taken together with the innate variability of the disease, makes it seem logical to
involve patients in managing their own care. However, attempts to
implement self management have met with varied success, and the
evidence is inconclusive, particularly in primary care, where asthma
patients receive most care.
Self management plans are currently advocated in most international
guidelines on managing asthma.
1 2
The use of such plans
reflects expert opinion that the way forward is to form an ongoing
partnership with patients3 that enables a "treatment strategy in which patients are taught to act appropriately when the
first signs of asthma exacerbation appear."4
Many, often innovative, plans have evolved, including written patient
education programmes, video assisted material, credit cards,
audiocassettes, and computer assisted material. A systematic review of
these self management education programmes showed some improvements in
health outcomes.5 Of the 27 trials scrutinised, only six
were conducted in primary care and several noted poor attendance by
patients.6-8 None sought the views of patients or the
health professionals who would implement the plans Levy and Hilton conclude that studies "have yet to produce
incontrovertible evidence for the benefits of self-treatment
plans."9 Neville and Higgins conclude that education is
useful only if it includes self management plans, written plans, and
regular review and that delivering such plans to all asthmatic patients would be a daunting task.10
We report the results of a pilot study exploring the views of general
practitioners, practice nurses, and patients on guided self management
plans for asthma.
We used focus groups because of the exploratory nature of
the study. Focus groups were held separately with doctors, nurses, and
patients to facilitate maximum freedom of expression by
participants.11
We used purposive sampling (sampling designed to obtain rich detailed
data) to ensure a wide range of experience and views in the groups. The
professionals were selected from computerised practices in West
Glamorgan that were approved for asthma surveillance. The area has two
large district general hospitals. Each has a consultant respiratory
physician and uses a respiratory liaison nurse and written guided self
management plans.
Two groups of general practitioners were enlisted. The first comprised
seven doctors known to have an interest in asthma care, and the other
seven general practitioners offering normal pragmatic care. The nurses
were all trained in managing asthma. We deliberately selected them from
different practices from the general practitioners to maximise the
number of practices included. The nurses were divided into two groups
of six and seven.
Patient recruitment reflected our earlier work, which had shown that
adherence to professionally prescribed regimens was associated with
different beliefs and attitudes to the condition and coping strategies.12 The patients were predominantly working and
middle class and reflected the socioeconomic profile of the area. The four adult patient groups were recruited from the practices of participating general practitioners and stratified by sex and the ratio
of reliever to preventer drugs prescribed in the previous 12 months.
Patients were assessed as compliant (defined as those taking optimal
(medically approved) doses of both reliever and preventer drugs) or
non-compliant (those taking more than optimal amounts of reliever drug
only despite having being advised to take preventer drugs in the past
year). We had four adult focus groups (compliant men (seven), compliant
women (six), non-compliant men (six) , and non-compliant women (six))
plus a group of seven teenagers (aged 12-17) recruited from the local
comprehensive school with staff cooperation and parental permission.
Ethical approval was granted by Iechyd Morgannwg Health Authority.
The groups met in convenient venues such as schools for the
teenagers and surgeries, pubs, and the local community hospital for the
adults, and the average length of a group meeting was 50-60 minutes.
Fieldwork was carried out in 1997-8 by an experienced qualitative
researcher (SA) accompanied by a secretarial assistant. The groups met
twice at five to eight month intervals. All discussions were tape
recorded, with permission, and transcribed in full for analysis. In the
first round, participants were given a brief explanation of the format
of the meeting and an additional explanation of guided self management
plans consistent with the British Thoracic Society guidelines. This
encompassed the concept of collective responsibility and partnership
between the patient, the health professional, and the patient's family
that allows the patient to keep well and adjust treatment according to
a treatment plan developed by the clinician.3 Three
patient vignettes, based on a typology developed in our earlier
qualitative research, were presented on cards to stimulate comment and
encourage the members to talk (box). In the second round the patient
groups were given feedback about the views of professionals and
professional groups were given feedback on patients' views to see if
it affected their opinions and to clarify and explore barrier themes.
The bulk of the analysis was carried out by SA, with transcripts read
and themes debated by RP. All three authors discussed
interpretation.
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Health professionals and patients were aware of guided self
management plans. However, general practitioners and nurses made little
use of them, and their experience was limited to the plans given out by
the hospitals or, in the case of some nurses, by drug companies.
Although all patients agreed that guided self management plans may be
of use to other people with asthma, only one was currently using a plan
and only five claimed to have done so in the past.
Nurses
Nurse W: They do have a place but you have to give them to
motivated patients Nurse X: Well they say, "The nurse has given me this
so I should be able to manage myself." Your concern is then whether
they will try to manage too long before coming back, and then they
reach a crisis. Nurse Y: You can't cover every eventuality on a plan
either Moderator: You're making them sound quite dangerous. Nurse X: They can be, especially for very intelligent
people
Design:
Qualitative study using nine focus groups that
each met on two occasions.
Setting:
South Wales.
Subjects:
13 asthma nurses, 11 general practitioners (six with an interest in asthma), and 32 patients (13 adults compliant with treatment, 12 non-compliant adults, and seven teenagers).
Results:
Neither health professionals nor patients were enthusiastic about guided self management plans, and, although for
different reasons, almost all participants were ambivalent about their
usefulness or relevance. Most professionals opposed their use. Few
patients reported sustained use, and most felt that plans were largely
irrelevant to them. The attitudes associated with these views reflect
the gulf between the professionals' concept of the "responsible
asthma patient" and the patients' view.
Conclusions:
Attempts to introduce self guided
management plans in primary care are unlikely to be successful. A more
patient centred, patient negotiated plan is needed for asthma care in the community.
![]()
Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Participants and methods
Results
Discussion
References
that is, general
practitioners and asthma nurses.
![]()
Participants and methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Participants and methods
Results
Discussion
References
Patient vignettes
John was diagnosed as having asthma. He was
prescribed reliever (salbutamol) and preventer (beclometasone) drugs.
John said the doctor had told him that he had "slight" or
"bronchial asthma," which John did not think was the same as
"proper asthma." He told only close family that he had chest
trouble and used an inhaler. John did not use his preventive medication
or attend an asthma clinic as his asthma "came and went" and was
not "real asthma."
Sue was upset when she had asthma
diagnosed. She was prescribed reliever (salbutamol) and preventer
(beclometasone) drugs. She took both drugs as prescribed. She did not
mind who knew that she had asthma or that she used inhalers. After a
time she was not upset by her diagnosis. She said: "Asthma is just a
small part of me and of my life. I keep it under control myself. I
don't need an asthma clinic."
Joe had asthma diagnosed and was
prescribed reliever (salbutamol) and preventer (beclometasone) drugs.
Initially Joe took his preventive drug as he thought that it was an
antibiotic course that you took on diagnosis. He then used his
preventive drug along with the salbutamol only when having breathing
difficulties. Joe told people outside work that he had chest troubles
and used an inhaler but did not tell anyone at work. Joe did not think
an asthma clinic necessary for his "sort of asthma."
![]()
Results
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Participants and methods
Results
Discussion
References
The nurses' views were remarkably consistent and remained
largely unchanged after feedback. The recurrent comments were the
importance of patient education and the need for ongoing monitoring.
These tasks were best achieved by the patient attending an asthma
clinic, where nurses had the expertise and the time (unlike doctors) to
explain the condition and the treatment.
" just
a few pointers," " two or three instructions"
but only to
patients who had accepted and understood their condition and were using
drugs correctly. Such plans were not seen as appropriate for patients
with newly diagnosed asthma or for patients who might be taking their
drugs as prescribed but were not receiving regular checks. Patients
were "all different" and needed different approaches. Patients were
"not the best judges of their own health" and "could be
overconfident" and "cocky." The concern was expressed that patients would rely on a guided self management plan and not return for
regular review (box). Such failure would "increase the likelihood of
falling into bad habits" since neither their inhaler techniques nor
their use of drugs would be monitored. This was seen as particularly dangerous if the patient had misunderstood the plan initially. In this
sense nurses thought that guided self management plans could militate
against optimal health and treatment.
Nurses' views
with instructions there to make sure they will seek
medical advice if the condition is deteriorating . . . And not give it to people who would take it too far and leave it too
long before seeking help.
you can't account for every symptom so some of them would say,
"Well, I haven't got that or the peak flow hasn't quite got to that
stage so I'd better wait until it gets there."
they are the worst.
General practitioners
Both groups of doctors were equally unenthusiastic about
standardised plans and the relevance of plans generally for their
patients (box). They were more likely to disparage their patients'
capacity for self management, citing their inability to "take on
board more than a very small amount of information at a time." Like
the nurses, they stressed the need for continuing education and
dialogue and debated their role with non-compliant patients. Patients'
had "the right to choose their own treatment," they were
"autonomous" and had to "be responsible for their condition." It was even proposed that it was inappropriate for the doctor to try
strategies to encourage compliance (this was delegated to the nurses).
here's your plan." Others felt that the plans "encouraged dependency." All tended to agree that the plans were difficult to achieve in everyday practice given the constraints of time
and tended to militate against a meaningful doctor-patient relationship. In contrast to the consensus displayed by the nurses, their discussions were marked by greater ambivalence and pragmatism. Feedback of patients' views did not substantially alter the key themes.
|
General practitioners' views
Dr A: But my experience is that they've got to be in words of one syllable and fit on one side of A4, preferably on one side of A5. And if they don't then they are not worth having. And I don't think you can do a useful plan that encompasses all the concerns we've mentioned in that way. Dr B: They should be short and sharp. But how can they be effective then? Dr C: I think they should fit on a credit card [laughter]. Dr B: Yes. That's a realistic approach to self
management plans. Because if you've got more than three or four key
points I think that apart from the most diligent and meticulous
patient Dr D: Hospitals have a self management plan telling patients about techniques and another one telling them that if your peak flow drops increase this and that and it just confuses patients. They don't understand it. And all patients get the same plan. Dr A: Yes. You can't do that. It's ridiculous. Dr B: Every patient is different and needs different advice. And only educated patients can deal with the information they are given anyway. Some of my patients have shown me these plans and I've told them to put them in the bin. |
Patients
All but one of the patients agreed that self management
plans might be of use to other patients but, for differing reasons,
were not relevant for them. Only five of the 35 patients reported
recording and monitoring their asthma for the nurses, and all of them
had let this lapse as "too bothersome" or an "unnecessary complication." Most saw the role of nurses as providing access to
crisis care in place of seeing the doctor.
|
Patients' views
Moderator: Where do you think self management plans fit into this or don't they? Patient J: We are self managing to a certain extent,
where they give us the medication to take Patient K: Why do I want something written down? You know . . . your chest tells you. Patient J: No, you don't need it written down. What you need is being kept up to date with any advances or new treatment. Patient F: It would take a bit of convincing for me. Patient H: At the end of the day it all boils down to
ourselves |
| |
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The professionals and patients in this study were unenthusiastic about guided self management plans. Almost all participants were at best ambivalent about their potential usefulness and relevance, although the reasons for their ambivalence varied greatly. Attitudes in general are rooted in the professionals' experiences of dealing with patients in the context of everyday general practice and the patients' experiences of coping with asthma at work, home, and social events. A fundamental mismatch is apparent between the views of professionals and patients on what is a responsible asthma patient and what patients should be doing to control their symptoms.
We found that many patients with mild to moderate asthma do not regard it as a chronic disease that needs regular monitoring and therapeutic adjustments. Indeed, they prefer to manage it as an intermittent acute disorder, and they are uncomfortable with a guided self management plan that reinforces asthma as a chronic, ongoing disease needing monitoring and managing. These findings confirm our earlier work on attitudes of asthma patients.12
The attitudes of the professionals were more unexpected. Guided self management plans were seen as a low priority, and most patients were managed by monitoring or policing. Education appeared to mean, at the most basic level, ensuring that the correct drug was taken at the right time in the most effective way.
|
What is already known on this topic
Guided self management plans for adults with asthma are widely advocated and seem to have some health benefits Attempts to implement this approach have met with varied success and do not incorporate patients' views What this study addsNeither health professionals nor patients were enthusiastic about guided self management plans A fundamental mismatch exists between the views of professionals and patients on what is a responsible asthma patient Guided self management plans for adults with mild to moderate asthma are unlikely to be accepted or sustained in primary care |
Our findings suggest that attempts to introduce guided self management
plans in primary care are unlikely to be successful. If guided self
management is to work, new plans that are more patient centred need to
be developed in place of those based on the medical model. Nurses need
to be not only helped and supported by general practitioners but
trained in techniques that enable changes in patient
behaviour.13 In addition, we need to identify which
patients need or are likely to accept guided self management.
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank the general practitioners, asthma nurses, and patients who volunteered to take part in this study.
Contributors: AJ was instrumental in coordinating the study and formulated the idea. RP designed the method and advised on the interpretation of the data. SA undertook the interviews and the analysis in collaboration with RP. AJ and RP were responsible for the initial drafting of the paper, but all three authors contributed to the final version. AJ will act as guarantor for this paper. Barbara Jones organised the focus groups and transcribed the tapes for SA.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
Funding: This study was supported by a grant from the Wales Office of Research and Development (C96/2/008)
Competing interests: None declared.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | British Thoracic Society. Guidelines for the management of asthma: a summary. BMJ 1993; 306: 776-782. |
| 2. |
Haughney J.
Guidelines on the management of asthma the global initiative.
Airways
1997;
4:
2-4.
|
| 3. | Partridge MR. Patients' self-assessment and treatment strategies for acute asthma. Research and Clinical Forums 1990; 15: 65-73. |
| 4. |
Lahdensuo A.
Guided self management of asthma how to do it.
BMJ
1999;
319:
759-760 |
| 5. | Gibson PG, Coughlan J, Wilson AJ, Abramson M, Bauman A, Hensley MJ, et al. Self-management education and regular practitioner review for adults with asthma. In: Cochrane Collaboration,ed. Cochrane Library. Issue 2. Oxford: Update Software, 2000. |
| 6. | Ayres JG, Campbell LM, Follows RMA. A controlled assessment of an asthma self-management plan involving a budesonide dose regime. Eur Respir J 1996; 9: 886-892[Abstract]. |
| 7. | Jones KP, Mullee MA, Middleton M, Chapman E, Holgate ST. Peak flow based asthma self-management: a randomised controlled study in general practice. Thorax 1995; 50: 851-857[Abstract]. |
| 8. | Yoon R, McKenzie DK, Bauman A, Miles DA. Controlled trial evaluation of an asthma education programme for adults. Thorax 1993; 48: 1110-1116[Abstract]. |
| 9. | Levy M, Hilton S. Education and self-management, in asthma in practice. 4th ed. London: Royal College of General Practitioners, 1999:63-69. |
| 10. |
Neville RG, Higgins BG.
Issues at the interface between primary and secondary care in the management of common respiratory disease.
Thorax
1999;
54:
813-817 |
| 11. | Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989. |
| 12. | Adams S, Pill R, Jones A. Medication, chronic illness and identity: the perspective of people with asthma. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 189-201. |
| 13. | Rollnick S, Kinnersley P, Stott N. Methods of helping patients with behaviour change. BMJ 1993; 307: 188-190. |
(Accepted 24 July 2000)
Read all Rapid Responses
Israeli students are refusing to perform intimate examinations on anaesthetised women without their informed consent.