肺科医生和初级保健提供者COPD管理实践与专家建议的比较

E. Jackson, Keith J. Johnson, S. Dermer, F. Martinez
{"title":"肺科医生和初级保健提供者COPD管理实践与专家建议的比较","authors":"E. Jackson, Keith J. Johnson, S. Dermer, F. Martinez","doi":"10.1183/13993003.CONGRESS-2018.PA3141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rationale: Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) COPD in 2017 recommended several important changes regarding assessment of exacerbation risk and selection of pharmacotherapy (Vogelmeier CF et al, Am J Respr Crit Care Med 2017;195(5):557-582). The objective of this study was to assess knowledge, competence and attitudes among pulmonologists and primary care providers (PCPs) regarding the interpretation of these recommendations using case-based scenarios. Methods: A continuing medical education (CME)-certified program consisting of 26 multiple-choice questions derived from GOLD 2017 recommendations, was hosted on the Medscape Education website. Participant responses were collected from July 25 to August 20, 2017. Confidentiality was maintained and responses were de-identified and aggregated prior to analyses. Findings: 209 pulmonologists and 220 PCPs participated. 51% of pulmonologists and 81% of PCPs were unaware that GOLD 2017 no longer considers lung function for staging and treatment selection. For a mild COPD case, 33% of pulmonologists and 33% of PCPs chose no pharmacotherapy. For moderate-severe COPD, 35% of pulmonologists and 39% of PCPs would consider ICS use outside of GOLD recommendations; 38% of pulmonologists and 46% of PCPs would maintain triple therapy in a symptomatic exacerbation-free patient versus a de-escalation strategy. Conclusion: Significant gaps regarding GOLD 2017 recommended practices were identified among both groups. Educational interventions tailored to specific needs are warranted to address these gaps.","PeriodicalId":228043,"journal":{"name":"Medical education, web and internet","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of COPD Management Practices with Expert Recommendations among Pulmonologists and Primary Care Providers\",\"authors\":\"E. Jackson, Keith J. Johnson, S. Dermer, F. Martinez\",\"doi\":\"10.1183/13993003.CONGRESS-2018.PA3141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Rationale: Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) COPD in 2017 recommended several important changes regarding assessment of exacerbation risk and selection of pharmacotherapy (Vogelmeier CF et al, Am J Respr Crit Care Med 2017;195(5):557-582). The objective of this study was to assess knowledge, competence and attitudes among pulmonologists and primary care providers (PCPs) regarding the interpretation of these recommendations using case-based scenarios. Methods: A continuing medical education (CME)-certified program consisting of 26 multiple-choice questions derived from GOLD 2017 recommendations, was hosted on the Medscape Education website. Participant responses were collected from July 25 to August 20, 2017. Confidentiality was maintained and responses were de-identified and aggregated prior to analyses. Findings: 209 pulmonologists and 220 PCPs participated. 51% of pulmonologists and 81% of PCPs were unaware that GOLD 2017 no longer considers lung function for staging and treatment selection. For a mild COPD case, 33% of pulmonologists and 33% of PCPs chose no pharmacotherapy. For moderate-severe COPD, 35% of pulmonologists and 39% of PCPs would consider ICS use outside of GOLD recommendations; 38% of pulmonologists and 46% of PCPs would maintain triple therapy in a symptomatic exacerbation-free patient versus a de-escalation strategy. Conclusion: Significant gaps regarding GOLD 2017 recommended practices were identified among both groups. Educational interventions tailored to specific needs are warranted to address these gaps.\",\"PeriodicalId\":228043,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical education, web and internet\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical education, web and internet\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.CONGRESS-2018.PA3141\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical education, web and internet","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.CONGRESS-2018.PA3141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

理由:2017年全球慢性阻塞性肺疾病倡议(GOLD) COPD建议在评估恶化风险和药物治疗选择方面进行几项重要更改(Vogelmeier CF等,Am J Respr Crit Care Med 2017;195(5):557-582)。本研究的目的是评估肺科医生和初级保健提供者(pcp)在使用基于病例的情景解释这些建议方面的知识、能力和态度。方法:持续医学教育(CME)认证项目由26个多项选择题组成,这些选择题来源于GOLD 2017推荐,并在Medscape education网站上进行。参与者的回复于2017年7月25日至8月20日收集。保密并在分析前对回复进行去识别和汇总。结果:209名肺科医生和220名pcp参与。51%的肺科医生和81%的pcp不知道GOLD 2017在分期和治疗选择中不再考虑肺功能。对于轻度COPD病例,33%的肺科医生和33%的pcp不选择药物治疗。对于中重度COPD, 35%的肺科医生和39%的pcp会考虑在GOLD建议之外使用ICS;38%的肺科医生和46%的pcp会在无症状加重的患者中维持三联疗法,而不是降级策略。结论:两组在GOLD 2017推荐实践方面存在显著差异。有必要针对具体需要采取教育干预措施,以解决这些差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of COPD Management Practices with Expert Recommendations among Pulmonologists and Primary Care Providers
Rationale: Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) COPD in 2017 recommended several important changes regarding assessment of exacerbation risk and selection of pharmacotherapy (Vogelmeier CF et al, Am J Respr Crit Care Med 2017;195(5):557-582). The objective of this study was to assess knowledge, competence and attitudes among pulmonologists and primary care providers (PCPs) regarding the interpretation of these recommendations using case-based scenarios. Methods: A continuing medical education (CME)-certified program consisting of 26 multiple-choice questions derived from GOLD 2017 recommendations, was hosted on the Medscape Education website. Participant responses were collected from July 25 to August 20, 2017. Confidentiality was maintained and responses were de-identified and aggregated prior to analyses. Findings: 209 pulmonologists and 220 PCPs participated. 51% of pulmonologists and 81% of PCPs were unaware that GOLD 2017 no longer considers lung function for staging and treatment selection. For a mild COPD case, 33% of pulmonologists and 33% of PCPs chose no pharmacotherapy. For moderate-severe COPD, 35% of pulmonologists and 39% of PCPs would consider ICS use outside of GOLD recommendations; 38% of pulmonologists and 46% of PCPs would maintain triple therapy in a symptomatic exacerbation-free patient versus a de-escalation strategy. Conclusion: Significant gaps regarding GOLD 2017 recommended practices were identified among both groups. Educational interventions tailored to specific needs are warranted to address these gaps.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The value of a pleural fellowship post Comparison of physicians’ and medical students’ knowledge in the treatment and prevention of COPD according to the final results of the ASCO-II study COPD.Pal: Using a person-based approach to develop a self-management app for people with COPD Children’s interstital lung diseases (chILD) – an area of unmet educational need? Impact of COVID-19 on Tunisian pulmonology trainees
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1