Aim
This scoping review will gather existing evidence on specific interventions at presentation and discharge which aim to standardize care and/or reduce unnecessary admissions and/or readmissions to hospital for patients presenting with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary (airways) disease.
Design
Scoping review of relevant literature from January 2000–March 2019.
Methods
Database searches for primary evidence in peer‐reviewed journals will be conducted electronically using Web of Science, EMBASE (Elsevier) and PUBMED. Eligibility criteria will include hospital‐based interventions for presentations of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with outcomes specific to standardizing care or reducing unnecessary admissions or readmissions. Abstract, full‐text screening and data extraction will be completed independently by a panel of expert reviewers.
Results
We aim to identify current interventions and improvement approaches in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary (airways) disease care that have an impact on admission and discharge processes or readmissions. Recommendations as a result of this review will aid the design and development of future improvement intervention.
IntroductionChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic respiratory disease that may be punctuated by episodes of worsening symptoms, called exacerbations. Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are detrimental to clinical outcomes, reduce patient quality of life and often result in hospitalisation and cost for the health system. Improved diagnosis and management of COPD may reduce the incidence of hospitalisation and death among this population. This scoping review aims to identify improvement interventions designed to standardise the hospital care of patients with AECOPD at presentation, admission and discharge, and/or aim to reduce unnecessary admissions/readmissions.MethodsThe review followed a published protocol based on methodology set out by Arksey and O’Malley and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Electronic database searches for peer-reviewed primary evidence were conducted in Web of Science, EMBASE (Elsevier) and PubMed. Abstract, full-text screening and data extraction were completed independently by a panel of expert reviewers. Data on type of intervention, implementation supports and clinical outcomes were extracted. Findings were grouped by theme and are presented descriptively.Results21 articles met the inclusion criteria. Eight implemented a clinical intervention bundle at admission and/or discharge; six used a multidisciplinary care pathway; five used coordinated case management and two ran a health coaching intervention with patients.ConclusionThe findings indicate that when executed reliably, improvement initiatives are associated with positive outcomes, such as reduction in length of stay, readmissions or use of health resources. Most of the studies reported an improvement in staff compliance with the initiatives and in the patient’s understanding of their disease. Implementation supports varied and included quality improvement methodology, multidisciplinary team engagement, staff education and development of written or in-person delivery of patient information. Consideration of the implementation strategy and methods of support will be necessary to enhance the likelihood of success in any future intervention.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.