{"title":"急性加重后肺康复(PEPR)在现实世界临床环境中的有效性和可行性:一个质量改进项目","authors":"A. Lewko, S. Mansell, Melanie Irvin-sellers","doi":"10.5114/PHR.2021.109027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The implementation of Post-Exacerbation Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PEPR) in clinical practice has some challenges. Aims: The aim of this project was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of PEPR in practice. Material and methods: Data were collected prospectively from 112 patients referred to PEPR. Healthcare (HC) utilization was measured by 30and 90-day readmissions (30R&90R) and emergency departments visits (30ED&90ED), and compared between PEPR completers, drop-outs, and decliners (Chi-squared test). Incremental cost effectiveness (ICER) was calculated. The Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT), the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Assessment Test (CAT), the Breathing Problem Questionnaire (BPQ), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS) were all assessed preand post-PEPR. Results: Compared to PEPR completers (n = 38), PEPR decliners (n = 59) and drop-out patients (n = 15) had more 30&90ED attendances (8% vs. 24% and 47%; χ2 = 4.31, p = 0.04 and χ2 = 9.60, p = 0.002, respectively), 30R (5% vs. 20% and 27%; χ2 = 4.67, p = 0.03 and χ2 = 4.44, p = 0.04, respectively), and 90R (3% vs. 24% and 40%; χ2 = 7.93, p = 0.005 and χ2 = 12.39, p < 0.001, respectively). The ICER was £7,248 (€8,394) in favor of the PEPR-completer group. There were","PeriodicalId":88183,"journal":{"name":"The Physiotherapy review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness and Feasibility of Post-Exacerbation Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PEPR) in a Real-World Clinical Setting: A Quality Improvement Project\",\"authors\":\"A. Lewko, S. Mansell, Melanie Irvin-sellers\",\"doi\":\"10.5114/PHR.2021.109027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The implementation of Post-Exacerbation Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PEPR) in clinical practice has some challenges. Aims: The aim of this project was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of PEPR in practice. Material and methods: Data were collected prospectively from 112 patients referred to PEPR. Healthcare (HC) utilization was measured by 30and 90-day readmissions (30R&90R) and emergency departments visits (30ED&90ED), and compared between PEPR completers, drop-outs, and decliners (Chi-squared test). Incremental cost effectiveness (ICER) was calculated. The Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT), the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Assessment Test (CAT), the Breathing Problem Questionnaire (BPQ), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS) were all assessed preand post-PEPR. Results: Compared to PEPR completers (n = 38), PEPR decliners (n = 59) and drop-out patients (n = 15) had more 30&90ED attendances (8% vs. 24% and 47%; χ2 = 4.31, p = 0.04 and χ2 = 9.60, p = 0.002, respectively), 30R (5% vs. 20% and 27%; χ2 = 4.67, p = 0.03 and χ2 = 4.44, p = 0.04, respectively), and 90R (3% vs. 24% and 40%; χ2 = 7.93, p = 0.005 and χ2 = 12.39, p < 0.001, respectively). The ICER was £7,248 (€8,394) in favor of the PEPR-completer group. There were\",\"PeriodicalId\":88183,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Physiotherapy review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Physiotherapy review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5114/PHR.2021.109027\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Physiotherapy review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/PHR.2021.109027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
背景:急性加重后肺康复(PEPR)在临床实践中的实施存在一些挑战。目的:本项目旨在评价PEPR在实践中的可行性和有效性。材料和方法:前瞻性收集112例PEPR患者的资料。通过30天和90天的再入院(30R&90R)和急诊科就诊(30ED&90ED)来衡量医疗保健(HC)的利用率,并比较PEPR完成者、退出者和下降者(卡方检验)。计算增量成本效益(ICER)。增量穿梭行走测试(ISWT)、慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)评估测试(CAT)、呼吸问题问卷(BPQ)和医院焦虑抑郁评分(HADS)均在pepr前后进行评估。结果:与PEPR完成者(n = 38)相比,PEPR下降者(n = 59)和退出患者(n = 15)有更多的30和90ed出席率(8%比24%和47%;χ2 = 4.31, p = 0.04; χ2 = 9.60, p = 0.002), 30R (5% vs. 20%, 27%;χ2 = 4.67, p = 0.03, χ2 = 4.44, p = 0.04)和90R(3%比24%和40%;χ2 = 7.93, p = 0.005; χ2 = 12.39, p < 0.001)。ICER以7,248英镑(8,394欧元)的价格支持pepr完成者组。有
Effectiveness and Feasibility of Post-Exacerbation Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PEPR) in a Real-World Clinical Setting: A Quality Improvement Project
Background: The implementation of Post-Exacerbation Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PEPR) in clinical practice has some challenges. Aims: The aim of this project was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of PEPR in practice. Material and methods: Data were collected prospectively from 112 patients referred to PEPR. Healthcare (HC) utilization was measured by 30and 90-day readmissions (30R&90R) and emergency departments visits (30ED&90ED), and compared between PEPR completers, drop-outs, and decliners (Chi-squared test). Incremental cost effectiveness (ICER) was calculated. The Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT), the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Assessment Test (CAT), the Breathing Problem Questionnaire (BPQ), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS) were all assessed preand post-PEPR. Results: Compared to PEPR completers (n = 38), PEPR decliners (n = 59) and drop-out patients (n = 15) had more 30&90ED attendances (8% vs. 24% and 47%; χ2 = 4.31, p = 0.04 and χ2 = 9.60, p = 0.002, respectively), 30R (5% vs. 20% and 27%; χ2 = 4.67, p = 0.03 and χ2 = 4.44, p = 0.04, respectively), and 90R (3% vs. 24% and 40%; χ2 = 7.93, p = 0.005 and χ2 = 12.39, p < 0.001, respectively). The ICER was £7,248 (€8,394) in favor of the PEPR-completer group. There were