MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147125973 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v65i2.1118

Evaluation of the Use of Inhaled Medications by Hospital Inpatients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

2012· article· en· W2147125973 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joshua Batterink, Karen Dahri, Amneet Aulakh, Carmen Rempel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInhalerMedicineCOPDPulmonary diseaseEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineAsthmaInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is increasing. Patients with COPD are treated with a variety of inhaled medications. Previous studies evaluating inhaler technique have had varied results but have generally found high rates of misuse of these devices. There is a paucity of studies of inhaler technique focusing on North American patients with COPD who have been admitted to hospital. Objective: To evaluate the inhaler technique of patients with COPD who have been admitted to hospital and to identify baseline patient characteristics and/or inhaler devices associated with poor inhaler technique. Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of COPD who were admitted to the hospitalist or internal medicine service at a tertiary care hospital in British Columbia between October 2010 and April 2011 were identified. After giving informed consent, recruited patients demonstrated their inhaler technique, which was evaluated with standardized checklists. Errors in technique were categorized as either noncritical or critical. Critical errors were defined as those resulting in little or no medication reaching the lungs. Results: Thirty-seven patients (mean age 78 years) participated in the study. Twenty-two (59%) of the patients made critical errors while demonstrating their inhaler technique. Patients using metered-dose inhalers were more likely to make a critical error than patients using other inhalers (13/14 [93%] versus 9/23 [39%]; relative risk 2.38, p = 0.002). On average, 26% of the steps for using an inhaler were performed incorrectly. Twenty-three (62%) of the patients reported having received previous counselling on inhaler technique, but only 13 (57%) of these 23 patients had received such counselling in the previous 6 months. Conclusions: More than half of the patients in this study misused their inhaler devices, and many made critical errors that would result in inadequate amounts of drug reaching the lung. Many of the patients were not receiving regular counselling on appropriate inhaler technique. Health care professionals should be aware of poor inhaler technique, should routinely evaluate their patients’ inhaler technique, and should provide counselling.RÉSUMÉ Contexte : On observe une augmentation de la prévalence de la maladie pulmonaire obstructive chronique (MPOC). Les patients atteints d’une MPOC sont traités par divers médicaments en inhalation. Des etudes antérieures évaluant les techniques d’utilisation propres à chaque inhalateur ont dégagé divers résultats, mais ont généralement révélé un taux élevé d’utilisation inadéquate des inhalateurs. Il existe très peu d’études sur les techniques d’utilisation des inhalateurs menées spécifiquement chez des patients nord-américains atteints d’une MPOC et hospitalisés. Objectif : Évaluer la technique d’utilisation des inhalateurs chez des patients atteints d’une MPOC qui ont été hospitalisés et determiner les caractéristiques de départ des patients ou les dispositifs d’inhalation associés à une mauvaise technique d’utilisation. Méthodes : On a repéré les patients affectés d’une MPOC qui ont été admis au service de médecine hospitalière ou au service de médecine interne d’un hôpital de soins tertiaires de Colombie-Britannique entre octobre 2010 et avril 2011. Après avoir accordé leur consentement éclairé, les patients recrutés ont montré leur technique d’utilisation de leur inhalateur, qui a été évaluée à l’aide de listes de contrôle standardisées. Les erreurs dans la technique d’utilisation ont été classées comme étant non critiques ou critiques. Les erreurs critiques étaient définies comme des erreurs ayant eu comme résultat que peu ou pas de médicament atteignait les poumons. Résultats : Au total, 37 patients (âge moyen de 78 ans) ont participé à l’étude. De ces patients, 22 (59 %) ont fait des erreurs critiques lors de la démonstration de leur technique d’utilisation. Les patients qui utilisaient des aerosols doseurs étaient plus susceptibles de faire des erreurs critiques que ceux utilisant d’autres inhalateurs (13/14 [93 %] contre 9/23 [39 %]; risque relatif de 2,38, p = 0,002). En moyenne, 26 % des étapes d’utilisation d’un inhalateur ont été effectuées incorrectement. Parmi les patients, 23 (62 %) ont indiqué avoir déjà reçu des conseils sur la technique d’utilisation de l’inhalateur, mais seulement 13 (57 %) de ces 23 patients avaient reçu des conseils dans les six derniers mois. Conclusions : Plus de la moitié des patients de l’étude utilisaient incorrectement leur inhalateur, et beaucoup faisaient des erreurs critiques qui avaient comme résultat qu’une quantité inadéquate du medicament atteignait les poumons. Plusieurs des patients ne recevaient pas de façon régulière des conseils sur la technique d’utilisation appropriée de leur inhalateur. Les professionnels de la santé devraient être conscients des mauvaises techniques d’utilisation des inhalateurs, évaluer régulièrement la technique d’utilisation des inhalateurs de leurs patients et donner à ces derniers des conseils sur cette technique.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207