Clinical audit: management of acute severe asthma in west Glasgow

Adherence to National Asthma Guidelines in the Acute Care Setting: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Peak flow is a crucial but simple test used to categorize the severity of an episode of an acute exacerbation of asthma. It should be regularly done in all the patients who present with asthma acute exacerbation in the emergency department. The British Thoracic Society (BTS)/Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidelines stipulate peak flow use as one of the main tools to categorize acute asthma into moderate, severe, and life-threatening asthma. The BTS and SIGN guidelines also state peak flow is to be utilized in monitoring the disease and to guide in treating patients with acute asthma.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This study aims to identify the adherence to BTS/SIGN guidelines around the use of peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) in assessing the severity of patients presenting with acute exacerbation of asthma in a district general hospital. The retrospective cohort study involved collating data between October 2022 and February 2023 from our hospital electronic system. The data collected about the use of PEFR and whether the patients were being classified by severity in presentation following this was compared to the BTS/SIGN 158 asthma guidelines. Following this, the data analysis was done using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0 (Released 2012; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States).

RESULTS

Data from 92 patients were collated. PEFR was recorded for 29.3% (n=27) of patients and acute exacerbation of asthma severity was documented in merely 17.4% (n=16) patients.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate a significant proportion of the patient cohort analyzed did not have peak flow readings, there is clear room for improvement, and further intervention is needed in order for the department to adhere to the gold standard guidelines (i.e., BTS/SIGN 158), and thus improve the management and monitoring of acute asthma exacerbations. Future directions can include departmental education, posters as a reminder, and prompts on the electronic system used to alert users to check PEFR when a diagnosis of acute asthma exacerbation is documented.

A clinical audit of the management of acute asthmatic attacks in adults and children presenting to an emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To compare the guidelines in the University Hospital of the West Indies (UHWI) acute asthma management protocol with actual practice in the Accident and Emergency Department.

METHODS

A prospective docket audit was done of all consecutive medical records of patients, presenting with a diagnosed acute asthmatic attack between June 1 and September 30, 2010, to the emergency department of the UHWI. A convenient sample was used. The audit tool used was created from the UHWI protocol for the emergency management of asthma in adults and children, as well as the British Adult Asthma Audit Tool. The audit tool assessed three main sections: initial assessment, initial management, and discharge considerations. Data were coded and entered in Microsoft Excel 2007 and statistical analyses conducted using Stata version 10. Management patterns were compared to the actual protocol and then discussed.

RESULTS

A total of 15 864 patients were seen during the study period. Of these, a total of 293 patients were seen for a presentation of acute asthma. More females (57.3%) than males were seen, with the mean age of 33.53 years. Only 31% of patients were given a severity assessment of mild, moderate, or severe. Peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) was attempted and recorded in 62%, but only 18.1% of patients had both pre and post PEFR done. Only 4.4% of patients were administered nebulizations within the suggested time frame. Positively, 94.2% of patients were given a prescription for inhaled corticosteroids and bronchodilators to continue post-discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute asthma management still remains an area of medical practice that continues to have long-standing difficulties. Failure to assess and document the severity of asthma attacks along with the under-utilization of PEFR was noted.

Death rates for asthma in English populations 1979-2007: comparison of underlying cause and all certified causes

OBJECTIVE

To report on trends in mortality for asthma using all certified causes of death mentioned on death certificates (conventionally termed 'mentions'), not just the underlying cause.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis using death certificate information and population data.

METHOD

Analysis of mortality records in the Oxford region (mentions available from 1979 to 2007) and English national data (mentions available from 1995 to 2007). The data were considered in periods defined by different national rules for selecting underlying cause of death (1979-1983, 1984-1992, 1993-2000, 2001-2007), and were also analysed as single calendar years.

RESULTS

In Oxford, underlying cause mortality rates per million population in the four periods were 25, 32, 22 and 15, respectively. Rates for mentions were 44, 47, 41 and 29, respectively. Rule changes exaggerated the increase in underlying cause mortality in 1984-1992 (when 67% of asthma deaths were coded as underlying cause). Conversely, the decrease in underlying cause mortality for asthma by 2001-2007 is less than it seems (because just under 50% of asthma deaths in 2001-2007 were coded as underlying cause). Comparisons of trends in asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease (COPD) for individuals aged ≥ 55 years showed a decrease for both asthma and COPD in men; in women, a decrease in asthma and an increase in COPD was seen from the early 1990s.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately half of all deaths certified for asthma are missed when asthma mortality is analysed using underlying cause alone. The long-term decreasing trend in asthma mortality is real, and is not attributable to a trend in transferring certification from underlying to contributing cause. Nonetheless, caution is needed when comparing asthma deaths using underlying cause alone across periods that include changes to rules for the selection of underlying cause.