The 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group was coordinated and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health. It is designed to improve patient care and support informed decision making about asthma management in the clinical setting. This update addresses six priority topic areas as determined by the state of the science at the time of a needs assessment, and input from multiple stakeholders: Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide Testing Indoor Allergen Mitigation Intermittent Inhaled Corticosteroids Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists Immunotherapy in the Treatment of Allergic Asthma Bronchial Thermoplasty A rigorous process was undertaken to develop these evidence-based guidelines. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ) Evidence-Based Practice Centers conducted systematic reviews on these topics, which were used by the Expert Panel Working Group as a basis for developing recommendations and guidance. The Expert Panel used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation), an internationally accepted framework, in consultation with an experienced methodology team for determining the certainty of evidence and the direction and strength of recommendations based on the evidence. Practical implementation guidance for each recommendation incorporates findings from NHLBI-led patient, caregiver, and clinician focus groups. To assist clincians in implementing these recommendations into patient care, the new recommendations have been integrated into the existing Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3) asthma management step diagram format.

PURPOSE Postpartum depression is common but inadequately recognized and undertreated. Continuing depressive symptoms are associated with adverse outcomes for the woman, her infant, and family. We wanted to determine the effect of a practice-based training program for screening, diagnosis, and management of depression in postpartum mothers. METHODSIn this practice-based effectiveness study, 28 practices were randomized to usual care (n = 14) or intervention (n = 14), and 2,343 women were enrolled between 5 and 12 weeks' postpartum. The intervention sites received education and tools for postpartum depression screening, diagnosis, initiation of therapy, and follow-up within their practices. Usual-care practices received a 30-minute presentation about postpartum depression. Screening information for the usual care was obtained from baseline surveys sent directly to the central site but was not available for patient care. Outcomes were based on patient-reported outcomes (level of depressive symptoms) from surveys at 6 and 12 months, plus medical record review (diagnosis and therapy initiation). RESULTSAmong the 2,343 women enrolled, 1,897 (80.1%) provided outcome information, and were included in the analysis. Overall, 654 (34.5% of 1,897) women had elevated screening scores indicative of depression, with comparable rates in the intervention and usual-care groups. Among the 654 women with elevated postpartum depression screening scores, those in the intervention practices were more likely to receive a diagnosis (P = .0006) and therapy for postpartum depression (P = .002). They also had lower depressive symptom levels at 6 (P = .07) and 12 months' (P = .001) postpartum.CONCLUSIONS Primary care-based screening, diagnosis, and management improved mother's depression outcomes at 12 months. This practical approach could be implemented widely with modest resources.

ObjectiveDespite the growing number of point-of-care (POC) tests available, little research has assessed primary care clinician need for such tests. We therefore aimed to determine which POC tests they actually use or would like to use (if not currently available in their practice).DesignCross-sectional survey.SettingPrimary care in Australia, Belgium (Flanders region only), the Netherlands, the UK and the USA.ParticipantsPrimary care doctors (general practitioners, family physicians).Main measuresWe asked respondents to (1) identify conditions for which a POC test could help inform diagnosis, (2) from a list of tests provided: evaluate which POC tests they currently use (and how frequently) and (3) determine which tests (from that same list) they would like to use in the future (and how frequently).Results2770 primary care clinicians across five countries responded. Respondents in all countries wanted POC tests to help them diagnose acute conditions (infections, acute cardiac disease, pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis), and some chronic conditions (diabetes, anaemia). Based on the list of POC tests provided, the most common tests currently used were: urine pregnancy, urine leucocytes or nitrite and blood glucose. The most commonly reported tests respondents expressed a wish to use in the future were: D-dimer, troponin and chlamydia. The UK and the USA reported a higher actual and desired use for POC tests than Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands. Our limited data suggest (but do not confirm) representativeness.ConclusionsPrimary care clinicians in all five countries expressed a desire for POC tests to help them diagnose a range of acute and chronic conditions. Rates of current reported use and desired future use were generally high for a small selection of POC tests, but varied across countries. Future research is warranted to explore how specific POC tests might improve primary care.

BACKGROUNDWe examined reports to a primary care, ambulatory, patient safety reporting system to describe types of errors reported and differences between anonymous and confi dential reports.METHODS Applied Strategies for Improving Patient Safety (ASIPS) is a demonstration project designed to collect and analyze medical error reports from clinicians and staff in 2 practice-based research networks: the Colorado Research Network (CaReNet) and the High Plains Research Network (HPRN). A major component of ASIPS is a voluntary patient safety reporting system that accepts reports of errors anonymously or confi dentially. Reports are coded using a multiaxial taxonomy.RESULTS Two years into this project, 33 practices with a total of 475 clinicians and staff have participated in ASIPS. Participants submitted 708 reports during this time (66% using the confi dential reporting form). We successfully followed up on 84% of the confi dential reports of interest within the allotted 10-day time frame. We ended up with 608 relevant, codable reports. Communication problems (70.8%), diagnostic tests (47%), medication problems (35.4%), and both diagnostic tests and medications (13.6%) were the most frequently reported errors. Confi dential reports were signifi cantly more likely than anonymous reports to contain codable data.CONCLUSION A safe and secure reporting system that relies on voluntary reporting from clinicians and staff can be successfully implemented in primary care settings. Information from confi dential reports appears to be superior to that from anonymous reports and may be more useful in understanding errors and designing interventions to improve patient safety.