|
EARLY
DISCHARGE IS SAFE
FOR SOME COPD PATIENTS
GLASGOW
AND EDINBURGH--Many
patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
can be safely discharged from the hospital earlier than is commonly thoughtas
long as treatment is continued at home under supervision, two new Scottish studies
suggest.[1,2] However, early discharge should be considered only for patients
with uncomplicated cases of COPD.
Exacerbations of COPD are
amongst the most common medical admissions and certainly are the most common respiratory
emergency admission. The burden of this disease is enormous, said William MacNee,
MD, an author of the first study and a Professor in the Respiratory Medicine Unit
at the University of Edinburgh. Researchers in the United States, United Kingdom,
and elsewhere have been investigating alternatives that would provide patients
with safe, effective care while lowering the cost of treatment.
One approachused in both
of the Scottish studiesemploys an Acute Respiratory Assessment Service (ARAS),
composed predominantly of trained nurses who work under physician supervision.[3]
These nurses evaluate COPD patients in the emergency room or on the hospital floor
to identify those who are candidates for early discharge (almost immediately or
within a few days of admission). The ARAS nurses also visit the patients at home
to monitor their compliance with, and response to, treatment.
This type of hospital at
home intermediate care is already being adopted widely in the United Kingdom
and also on the European mainland, said Robin D. Stevenson, MD, of the Department
of Respiratory Medicine, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, who was a coauthor of the second
study. The two studies used somewhat different methods: in Edinburgh, appropriate
patients were discharged almost immediately, whereas the Glasgow study provided
all patients with a brief period of inpatient care, increasing the proportion
of patients available for early discharge. However, both studies found that for
many patients with acute COPD exacerbations, prolonged hospitalization can be
avoided.
IMMEDIATE DISCHARGE
In the first study, Dr. MacNee
and colleagues initially evaluated 718 patients with acute exacerbations of COPD
who were admitted to an emergency room on a weekday during one 18month period.[1]
About half of these patients were not included in the study because they required
hospital admission for impaired consciousness, acute confusion, acute changes
on chest film, or an arterial pH below 7.35. An additional 25% were excluded because
of comorbidities, poor social circumstances, or lack of consent. The remaining
184 (26%) patients were randomized in a 1:2 ratio to standard treatment or to
early discharge with home suport provided by an ARAS nurse. A total of 62 patients
were assigned to hospital admission; the other 122 were discharged.
The patients admitted to the
hospital received usual care. Home treatment consisted of antibiotics, corticosteroids,
nebulized bronchodilators, and, if necessary, oxygen. The patients treated at
home were visited by an ARAS nurse the day after hospital discharge and every
two to three days thereafter until the ARAS team believed that the patients no
longer required home support.
Eight weeks after initial
presentation in the emergency room, patients in both groups were examined at home.
Pulmonary function was measured with spirometry, and quality of life was assessed.
The patients treated at home and their primary care physicians were asked to rate
their satisfaction with care.
Both the hospitalized patients
and those given home care improved with treatment, and the extent of the improvement
was comparable in the two groups. (There may have been a slightly greater improvement
in the home care group.) The median time to discharge was slightly longer in the
patients given home care than in those treated in the hospital (seven days vs
five days); this difference, said the researchers, may have reflected the fact
that the nurses home visits were not always daily. The early discharge group
received an average of 3.8 visits at home from the visiting nurse.
At eight weeks followup,
the rate of readmission was higher among the patients who received standard treatment
than among those given home care (34% vs 25%). In addition, the two groups had
similar spirometric measurements and similar assessments of their quality of life.
More than two thirds of the
patients treated at home returned the questionnaire that asked them to rate their
satisfaction with the care they received: 95% of the respondents were completely
satisfied, and 90% believed that home care was just as good as or better than
hospital care. The patients primary care physicians were also satisfied with
the treatment that had been administered.
The cost of home care was
roughly half that of hospital care. The researchers acknowledge, however, that
because many hospital costs are fixed, the actual savings from a switch to home
care would not be as great as was shown in their study.
REDUCED HOSPITAL
STAY
The randomized trial conducted
by Dr. Stevenson and colleagues was also confined to patients with uncomplicated
COPD.[2] In this study, an ARAS nurse visited the medical floors of one urban
hospital each weekday for 14 months to identify all patients who had been admitted
for exacerbations of COPD. Of the 412 patients so identified, about half were
excluded because of suspected or actual coexisting medical conditions that required
hospital care. Other patients were excluded from the study because they were homeless,
were participating in other clinical trials, or refused consent.
Of the 81 patients included
in the study, 40 were randomized to standard hospital care. The other 41 patients
were randomized to early discharge, which generally occurred on the next working
day after recruitment. An ARAS nurse visited these patients the morning after
discharge and, thereafter, at intervals determined by the nurse. Athome treatment
could be adjusted by the nurse after discussion with the ARAS medical staff. Both
groups of patients were evaluated two months after initial hospital discharge.
The mean duration of hospitalization
was 3.2 days for the early discharge patients and 6.1 days for those given standard
care. The two groups had a similar readmission rate (about 30%). The mean duration
of hospitalization after readmission was similar in the two groups (7.8 days vs
8.8 days, respectively). The number of patients who died within 60 days of initial
admission was slightly lower in the early discharge group than in the standard
treatment group.
Dr. Stevenson emphasized that
the benefits of early discharge apply only to patients with uncomplicated exacerbations
who do not have acidotic respiratory failure. He added, We believe that initial
assessment in hospital is essential in this model of care. All patients should
have a chest radiograph and arterial blood gases, with additional investigation
as necessary.
The main difference between
an ARAS-based system and earlier models of home care for COPD patients is that
in the ARAS model medical and nursing care is restricted to the acute illness
and no attempt is made to provide long-term supervision, which in previous studies
has not been cost-effective, Dr. Stevenson told PULMONARY
REVIEWS. The ARAS model uses nurses time more
economically and takes advantage of the fact that the greatest degree of improvement
in these patients takes place in the first two days after hospital admission,
thus increasing the number of patients who will be eligible for home care.
--Kristin
Della Volpe
References
1. Skwarska E, Cohen G, Skwarski KM, et al. Randomised controlled trial of supported
discharge in patients with exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Thorax. 2000; 55:907 912.
2. Cotton MM, Bucknall CE,
Dagg KD, et al. Early discharge for patients with exacerbations of chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax. 2000; 55:902 906.
3. Gravil JH, Al-Rawas OA,
Cotton MM, et al. Home treatment of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease by an acute respiratory assessment service. Lancet. 1998; 351:1853 1855.
Return
to table of contents
|