Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an effective intervention in the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Unfortunately some patients offered this treatment either fail to take up the offer or fail to complete the course. Studies have indicated a number of factors influencing uptake and completion rates. We describe the introduction of an intervention, the group opt-in session (GOIS), prior to individualised baseline assessment and entry to the PR course, with the intention being to improve uptake and completion rates. A 1.5-hour-long GOIS was offered as the first face-to-face contact to all patients referred for PR. Drop-out rates at all stages of the pathway from referral to graduation were collected on 200 patients prior to the introduction of the GOIS (non-GOIS group) and compared to the first 400 patients following introduction (the GOIS group). Possible independent predictors of course uptake and completion were examined in the GOIS group. The proportion of referred patients taking up the offer of individualised baseline assessment or a GOIS was similar (75% vs. 72.2%, p value not significant [ns]). However, since in the GOIS group the opt-in session preceded the individualised baseline assessment and some patients opted-out, a smaller proportion of referred patients underwent this assessment than in the non-GOIS group (58.7% vs. 75%, p < 0.001). In addition, dropouts following individualised baseline assessments were also reduced (7% vs. 22%, p < 0.001). Both of these factors reduced ‘wasted’ assessments. Similar proportions of patients referred began the PR course in both groups (53% vs. 51.7%, ns), but a higher proportion of patients graduated in the GOIS group (87.9% vs. 76.4%, p < 0.05). Drop-out rates due to illness were similar in both groups (8.5% pre vs. 6.8% post, ns). However, drop-out rates not due to illness were much higher in the non-GOIS group (15.1% vs. 5.3%, p < 0.001). In the GOIS group, patients who did not attend the GOIS were, on average, younger (64.6 years vs. 69.7 years, p < 0.001) and had a higher mean percent predicted Forced Expiratory Volume (50.6% vs. 43.8%, p < 0.05) than those that did attend. A greater proportion of patients who opted in to the GOIS and attended the PR course lived less than 25 minutes from the PR centre than either those who did not attend the GOIS or who attended and then opted out (77.4% vs. 63%, p<0.005). The GOIS improved the graduation rates at The North Bristol Lung Centre PR Course and reduced wasted assessments. There was no effect on initial uptake. Analysis of the behaviour of patients invited to a GOIS suggested that age, lung function and travel distance were important factors influencing patient choice.
[1]
D. Shale,et al.
Predictors of poor attendance at an outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programme.
,
2008,
Respiratory medicine.
[2]
D. Brooks,et al.
Acute exacerbations of COPD in subjects completing pulmonary rehabilitation.
,
2007,
Chest.
[3]
Richard Casaburi,et al.
Pulmonary Rehabilitation: Joint ACCP/AACVPR Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.
,
2007,
Chest.
[4]
J. Weinman,et al.
Participation and drop-out in pulmonary rehabilitation: a qualitative analysis of the patient's perspective
,
2007,
Clinical rehabilitation.
[5]
A. Bruton,et al.
Adherence to pulmonary rehabilitation: A qualitative study.
,
2006,
Respiratory medicine.
[6]
Thierry Troosters,et al.
American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement on pulmonary rehabilitation.
,
2006,
American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.
[7]
P. Jones,et al.
Predictors of success and failure in pulmonary rehabilitation
,
2006,
European Respiratory Journal.
[8]
P. Young,et al.
Respiratory rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: predictors of nonadherence.
,
1999,
The European respiratory journal.
[9]
M. Morgan,et al.
A short outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programme: immediate and longer-term effects on exercise performance and quality of life.
,
1998,
Respiratory medicine.