Current issue
Archive
Manuscripts accepted
About the journal
Editorial board
Abstracting and indexing
Subscription
Contact
Instructions for authors
Ethical standards and procedures
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
|
3/2021
vol. 25 abstract:
Original paper
Effectiveness and Feasibility of Post-Exacerbation Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PEPR) in a Real-World Clinical Setting: A Quality Improvement Project
Agnieszka Lewko
1
,
Stephanie K Mansell
2
,
Melanie Irvin-Sellers
3
PTrev 2021; vol 25 (3) 12-23
Online publish date: 2021/09/28
View
full text
Get citation
ENW EndNote
BIB JabRef, Mendeley
RIS Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
Background
The implementation of Post-Exacerbation Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PEPR) in clinical practice has some challenges. Aim The aim of this project was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of PEPR in practice. Material and methods Data were collected prospectively from 112 patients referred to PEPR. Healthcare (HC) utilization was measured by 30- and 90-day readmissions (30R&90R) and emergency departments visits (30ED&90ED), and compared between PEPR completers, drop-outs, and decliners (Chi-squared test). Incremental cost effectiveness (ICER) was calculated. The Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT), the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Assessment Test (CAT), the Breathing Problem Questionnaire (BPQ), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS) were all assessed pre- and post-PEPR. Results Compared to PEPR completers (n = 38), PEPR decliners (n = 59) and drop-out patients (n = 15) had more 30&90ED attendances (8% vs. 24% and 47%; χ2 = 4.31, p = 0.04 and χ2 = 9.60, p = 0.002, respectively), 30R (5% vs. 20% and 27%; χ2 = 4.67, p = 0.03 and χ2 = 4.44, p = 0.04, respectively), and 90R (3% vs. 24% and 40%; χ2 = 7.93, p = 0.005 and χ2 = 12.39, p < 0.001, respectively). The ICER was £7,248 (€8,394) in favor of the PEPR-completer group. There were significant improvements of mean difference in all assessment tests for patients who completed PEPR (95% CI), with the exception of their HADS score. In the ISWT, patients had a mean distance of 50.3 m (29.7 m pre-PEPR and 70.9 m post-PEPR; p < 0.001); patients had a mean score of -3.6 on the BPQ (-1.7 pre-PEPR, -5.4 post-PEPR; p = 0.001), and a mean CAT score of -4.3 (-1.9 pre-PEPR, -6.7 post-PEPR; p = 0.002). Conclusion PEPR is feasible and cost-effective. Several factors should be considered for HC quality and effectiveness improvement. keywords:
rehabilitation, pulmonary disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), patient readmission, outcome assessment (healthcare), quality of care |