Hilton S
Department of General Practice, St. George's Hospital Medical School, London.
Br J Gen Pract. 1990 Dec;40(341):505-6.
Doctors from 34 practices participated in an audit study which examined inhaler technique in up to 20 of their patients. A new scoring system, applicable to all forms of device, was used. Although the majority of the 422 patients (63%) was using metered dose inhalers, a broad range of other devices was included; most frequently Rotahalers (15%) and spacer devices (9%). For analysis, technique scores were rated as 'good' (score 4 out of 4), 'adequate' (score 3 or 4) and 'inadequate' (score 2 or less). Overall, 25% of patients had inadequate technique. Of all devices, the Turbohaler had the highest proportion of patients with good technique (78%), and metered dose inhalers the lowest (45%). This audit confirms that technique is unsatisfactory for a significant proportion of patients, regardless of the device used. A simple scoring system promotes consistent testing of technique within a practice.
来自34家医疗机构的医生参与了一项审计研究,该研究对他们多达20名患者的吸入器使用技术进行了检查。采用了一种适用于所有类型装置的新评分系统。尽管422名患者中的大多数(63%)使用的是定量吸入器,但也纳入了广泛的其他装置;最常见的是旋转式吸入器(15%)和储雾罐装置(9%)。为了进行分析,技术得分被评定为“良好”(满分4分,得4分)、“合格”(得分3分或4分)和“不合格”(得分2分或更低)。总体而言,25%的患者技术不合格。在所有装置中,都保呼乐使用技术良好的患者比例最高(78%),定量吸入器最低(45%)。这项审计证实,无论使用何种装置,相当一部分患者的技术都不尽人意。一个简单的评分系统有助于在医疗机构内对技术进行统一测试。