Baren Jill M, Boudreaux Edwin D, Brenner Barry E, Cydulka Rita K, Rowe Brian H, Clark Sunday, Camargo Carlos A
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Cooper Hospital Medical Center, Camden, NJ.
Chest. 2006 Feb;129(2):257-265. doi: 10.1378/chest.129.2.257.
Emergency department (ED) visits for asthma are frequent and may indicate increased morbidity and poor primary care access. Our objective was to compare the effect of two interventions on primary care follow-up after ED treatment for asthma exacerbations.
We performed a randomized controlled trial of patients 2 to 54 years old who were judged safe for discharge receiving prednisone, and who were available for contact at 2 days and 30 days. Patients were excluded if they were previously enrolled or did not speak English. Patients received usual discharge care (group A); free prednisone, vouchers for transport to and from a primary care visit, and either a telephone reminder to schedule a visit (group B); or a prior scheduled appointment (group C). Follow-up with a primary care provider for asthma within 30 days was the main outcome. Secondary outcomes were recurrent ED visits, subsequent hospitalizations, quality of life, and use of inhaled corticosteroids 1 year later.
Three hundred eighty-four patients were enrolled. Baseline demographics, chronic asthma severity, and access to care were similar across groups. Primary care follow-up was higher in group C (65%) vs group A (42%) or group B (48%) [p = 0.002]. Group C intervention remained significant (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 5.1) when adjusted for other factors influencing follow-up (prior primary care relationship, insurance status). There were no differences in ED, hospitalizations, quality of life, or inhaled corticosteroid use at 1 year after the index ED visit.
An intervention including free medication, transportation vouchers, and appointment assistance significantly increased the likelihood that discharged asthma patients obtained primary care follow-up but did not impact long-term outcomes.
因哮喘前往急诊科(ED)就诊的情况很常见,这可能表明发病率增加且初级保健服务可及性差。我们的目的是比较两种干预措施对哮喘急性加重经急诊科治疗后初级保健随访的影响。
我们对2至54岁被判定可安全出院且正在接受泼尼松治疗、在2天和30天可联系到的患者进行了一项随机对照试验。如果患者之前已入组或不会说英语,则将其排除。患者接受常规出院护理(A组);免费泼尼松、往返初级保健就诊的交通券以及安排就诊的电话提醒(B组);或预先安排的预约(C组)。30天内由初级保健提供者对哮喘进行随访是主要结局。次要结局包括再次前往急诊科就诊、随后的住院治疗、生活质量以及1年后吸入性糖皮质激素的使用情况。
共招募了384名患者。各组之间的基线人口统计学特征、慢性哮喘严重程度以及获得医疗服务的情况相似。C组的初级保健随访率(65%)高于A组(42%)或B组(48%)[p = 0.002]。在对影响随访的其他因素(先前的初级保健关系、保险状况)进行调整后,C组干预措施仍具有显著意义(优势比,2.8;95%置信区间,1.5至5.1)。在首次急诊科就诊1年后,在再次前往急诊科就诊、住院治疗、生活质量或吸入性糖皮质激素使用方面没有差异。
一项包括免费药物、交通券和预约协助的干预措施显著增加了哮喘出院患者获得初级保健随访的可能性,但并未影响长期结局。