The IRYSS-COPD appropriateness study: objectives, methodology, and description of the prospective cohort

Background: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often experience exacerbations of the disease that require hospitalization. Current guidelines offer little guidance for identifying patients whose clinical situation is appropriate for admission to the hospital, and properly developed and validated severity scores for COPD exacerbations are lacking. To address these important gaps in clinical care, we created the IRYSS-COPD Appropriateness Study. Methods/Design: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology was used to identify appropriate and inappropriate scenarios for hospital admission for patients experiencing COPD exacerbations. These scenarios were then applied to a prospective cohort of patients attending the emergency departments (ED) of 16 participating hospitals. Information was recorded during the time the patient was evaluated in the ED, at the time a decision was made to admit the patient to the hospital or discharge home, and during follow-up after admission or discharge home. While complete data were generally available at the time of ED admission, data were often missing at the time of decision making. Predefined assumptions were used to impute much of the missing data. Discussion: The IRYSS-COPD Appropriateness Study will validate the appropriateness criteria developed by the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology and thus better delineate the requirements for admission or discharge of patients experiencing exacerbations of COPD. The study will also provide a better understanding of the determinants of outcomes of COPD exacerbations, and evaluate the equity and variability in access and outcomes in these patients.

Development of appropriateness explicit criteria for cataract extraction by phacoemulsification

Background: Consensus development techniques were used in the late 1980s to create explicit criteria for the appropriateness of cataract extraction. We developed a new appropriateness of indications tool for cataract following the RAND method. We tested the validity of our panel results. Methods: Criteria were developed using a modified Delphi panel judgment process. A panel of 12 ophthalmologists was assembled. Ratings were analyzed regarding the level of agreement among panelists. We studied the influence of all variables on the final panel score using linear and logistic regression models. The explicit criteria developed were summarized by classification and regression tree analysis. Results: Of the 765 indications evaluated by the main panel in the second round, 32.9% were found appropriate, 30.1% uncertain, and 37% inappropriate. Agreement was found in 53% of the indications and disagreement in 0.9%. Seven variables were considered to create the indications and divided into three groups: simple cataract, with diabetic retinopathy, or with other ocular pathologies. The preoperative visual acuity in the cataractous eye and visual function were the variables that best explained the panel scoring. The panel results were synthesized and presented in three decision trees. Misclassification error in the decision trees, as compared with the panel original criteria, was 5.3%. Conclusion: The parameters tested showed acceptable validity for an evaluation tool. These results support the use of this indication algorithm as a screening tool for assessing the appropriateness of cataract extraction in field studies and for the development of practice guidelines.

Efficacy of a cognitive and behavioural psychotherapy applied by primary care psychologists in patients with mixed anxiety-depressive disorder: a research protocol

Background: In contrast with the recommendations of clinical practice guidelines, the most common treatment for anxiety and depressive disorders in primary care is pharmacological. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of a cognitive-behavioural psychological intervention, delivered by primary care psychologists in patients with mixed anxiety-depressive disorder compared to usual care. Methods/Design: This is an open-label, multicentre, randomized, and controlled study with two parallel groups. A random sample of 246 patients will be recruited with mild-to-moderate mixed anxiety-depressive disorder, from the target population on the lists of 41 primary care doctors. Patients will be randomly assigned to the intervention group, who will receive standardised cognitive-behavioural therapy delivered by psychologists together with usual care, or to a control group, who will receive usual care alone. The cognitive-behavioural therapy intervention is composed of eight individual 60-minute face-to face sessions conducted in eight consecutive weeks. A follow-up session will be conducted over the telephone, for reinforcement or referral as appropriate, 6 months after the intervention, as required. The primary outcome variable will be the change in scores on the Short Form-36 General Health Survey. We will also measure the change in the frequency and intensity of anxiety symptoms (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) and depression (Beck Depression Inventory) at baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months later. Additionally, we will collect information on the use of drugs and health care services. Discussion: The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of a primary care-based cognitive-behavioural psychological intervention in patients with mixed anxiety-depressive disorder. The international scientific evidence has demonstrated the need for psychologists in primary care. However, given the differences between health policies and health services, it is important to test the effect of these psychological interventions in our geographical setting.