eISSN: 2719-9665
ISSN: 2719-5139
Physiotherapy Review
Bieżący numer Archiwum Artykuły zaakceptowane O czasopiśmie Rada naukowa Bazy indeksacyjne Prenumerata Kontakt Zasady publikacji prac Standardy etyczne i procedury
Panel Redakcyjny
Zgłaszanie i recenzowanie prac online
vol. 25
Poleć ten artykuł:
streszczenie artykułu:
Artykuł oryginalny

Effectiveness and Feasibility of Post-Exacerbation Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PEPR) in a Real-World Clinical Setting: A Quality Improvement Project

Agnieszka Lewko
Stephanie K Mansell
Melanie Irvin-Sellers

  1. Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St. George’s University of London, United Kingdom
  2. Therapies Department, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
  3. Respiratory Medicine, Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
PTrev 2021; vol 25 (3) 12-23
Data publikacji online: 2021/09/28
Pełna treść artykułu Pobierz cytowanie
Metryki PlumX:

The implementation of Post-Exacerbation Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PEPR) in clinical practice has some challenges.

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.

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).

PEPR is feasible and cost-effective. Several factors should be considered for HC quality and effectiveness improvement.

© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.