↓ Skip to main content

Community Assessment of COPD Health Care (COACH) study: a clinical audit on primary care performance variability in COPD care

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Community Assessment of COPD Health Care (COACH) study: a clinical audit on primary care performance variability in COPD care
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0528-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

María Abad-Arranz, Ana Moran-Rodríguez, Enrique Mascarós Balaguer, Carmen Quintana Velasco, Laura Abad Polo, Sara Núñez Palomo, Jaime Gonzálvez Rey, Ana María Fernández Vargas, Antonio Hidalgo Requena, Jose Manuel Helguera Quevedo, Marina García Pardo, Jose Luis Lopez-Campos

Abstract

A thorough evaluation of the adequacy of clinical practice in a designated health care setting and temporal context is key for clinical care improvement. This study aimed to perform a clinical audit of primary care to evaluate clinical care delivered to patients with COPD in routine clinical practice. The Community Assessment of COPD Health Care (COACH) study was an observational, multicenter, nationwide, non-interventional, retrospective, clinical audit of randomly selected primary care centers in Spain. Two different databases were built: the resources and organization database and the clinical database. From January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 consecutive clinical cases of COPD in each participating primary care center (PCC) were audited. For descriptive purposes, we collected data regarding the age at diagnosis of COPD and the age at audit, gender, the setting of the PCC (rural/urban), and comorbidities for each patient. Two guidelines widely and uniformly used in Spain were carefully reviewed to establish a benchmark of adequacy for the audited cases. Clinical performance was analyzed at the patient, center, and regional levels. The degree of adequacy was categorized as excellent (> 80%), good (60-80%), adequate (40-59%), inadequate (20-39%), and highly inadequate (< 20%). During the study 4307 cases from 63 primary care centers in 6 regions of the country were audited. Most evaluated parameters were judged to fall in the inadequate performance category. A correct diagnosis based on previous exposure plus spirometric obstruction was made in an average of 17.6% of cases, ranging from 9.8 to 23.3% depending on the region. During the audited visit, only 67 (1.6%) patients had current post-bronchodilator obstructive spirometry; 184 (4.3%) patients had current post-bronchodilator obstructive spirometry during either the audited or initial diagnostic visit. Evaluation of dyspnea was performed in 11.1% of cases. Regarding treatment, 33.6% received no maintenance inhaled therapies (ranging from 31.3% in GOLD A to 7.0% in GOLD D). The two most frequently registered items were exacerbations in the previous year (81.4%) and influenza vaccination (87.7%). The results of this audit revealed a large variability in clinical performance across centers, which was not fully attributable to the severity of the disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 22 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Psychology 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 24 43%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,010,036
of 15,922,938 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#350
of 1,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,719
of 278,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,938 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them