Assessing the Quality of Clinical Practice in Asthma Management

Yuhang Zhou^*
*Correspondence: Yuhang Zhou, Department of Clinical Research, University of California, Los Angeles, USA, Email:

Keywords

Clinical practice • Asthma • Healthcare

Introduction

Another approach to quality assessment is to measure clinical outcomes. Outcome measures can include measures of lung function, symptom control and the frequency and severity of asthma exacerbations. These measures provide objective data that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of asthma management and to identify areas for improvement. Patient satisfaction surveys are another important tool for quality assessment. These surveys can provide valuable insights into the patient's experience of care, including the quality of communication with healthcare providers, the level of support provided and the overall satisfaction with the care received.

Literature Review

Asthma is a chronic respiratory condition characterized by inflammation and narrowing of the airways, leading to recurrent episodes of wheezing, coughing, chest tightness and shortness of breath. It affects people of all ages and its prevalence has been increasing over the years, with around 339 million people worldwide affected by this condition. Managing asthma requires a comprehensive approach that involves both pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions. In clinical practice, the diagnosis of asthma is made based on a combination of clinical history, physical examination, lung function tests and response to bronchodilators. Once the diagnosis is confirmed, treatment is tailored to the severity and frequency of symptoms. The mainstay of asthma management is the use of inhaled corticosteroids, which reduce airway inflammation and improve lung function. Other medications that are commonly used include long-acting beta-agonists, leukotriene modifiers and short-acting bronchodilators, which are used for quick relief of symptoms [1,2].

Non-pharmacological interventions include avoiding triggers that can exacerbate asthma symptoms, such as allergens, irritants and pollutants. Patients are also advised to maintain a healthy lifestyle, including regular exercise and a balanced diet, to improve overall lung function and reduce the risk of exacerbations. In addition to pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, patients with asthma require regular follow-up with their healthcare provider to monitor their symptoms and adjust their treatment as needed. This includes periodic lung function testing and assessment of asthma control, as well as education and counselling on proper inhaler technique and the importance of adherence to medication. Assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines is important to ensure that they are based on sound evidence and provide appropriate recommendations for clinical decision-making. A systematic appraisal of CPGs for asthma can help identify strengths and weaknesses in the development and implementation of the guidelines [3,4].

Discussion

One approach to assess the quality of CPGs is to use established appraisal tools such as the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) instrument, which consists of 23 items grouped into six domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability and editorial independence. Another tool that can be used to assess the quality of CPGs is the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system, which evaluates the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using a transparent and structured approach. In addition to using established appraisal tools, it is important to consider the relevance and applicability of the guidelines to the specific patient population and healthcare setting. This can be done by involving a multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals and patient representatives in the development and implementation of the guidelines and by considering factors such as costeffectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of the recommendations [5].

A systematic appraisal of asthma CPGs using established appraisal tools and considering the relevance and applicability of the guidelines to the specific patient population and healthcare setting can help ensure that the guidelines are of high quality and provide appropriate recommendations for clinical decisionmaking. By working closely with healthcare providers and following a personalized treatment plan, patients with asthma can achieve good control of their symptoms and improve their quality of life. Audit and feedback is another approach to quality assessment that involves monitoring the clinical practices of healthcare providers and providing feedback to them. This feedback can help providers identify areas for improvement and make changes to their clinical practices to improve the quality of care provided. In addition to these approaches, there are other tools and techniques that can be used to assess the quality of clinical practice in asthma management. These include peer review, clinical supervision and the use of clinical decision support tools [6].

Conclusion

Overall, quality assessment is a critical aspect of asthma management. By evaluating clinical practices and outcomes, healthcare providers can identify areas for improvement and take steps to ensure that patients receive the best possible care. Through on going quality assessment, healthcare providers can continually improve the quality of care provided to patients with asthma, leading to better outcomes and improved quality of life.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

1. Spilsbury, Karen, Emily Petherick, Nicky Cullum and Andrea Nelson, et al. "The role and potential contribution of clinical research nurses to clinical trials." J Clin Nurs 17 (2008): 549-557.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Kronenfeld, Joshua P., Kristi D. Graves, Frank J. Penedo and Betina Yanez. "Overcoming disparities in cancer: A need for meaningful reform for Hispanic and Latino cancer survivors." The Oncologist 26 (2021): 443-452.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Chukwueke, Ugonma N., Shawn Hervey-Jumper and Alyx Porter. "Disparities and inequities among patients with central nervous system tumor." Hematol Oncol Clin 36 (2022): e1-e8.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Chukwueke, Ugonma N., Elizabeth Vera, Alvina Acquaye and Shawn L. Hervey-Jumper, et al. "SNO 2020 diversity survey: Defining demographics, racial biases, career success metrics and a path forward for the field of neuro-oncology." Neuro-oncology 23 (2021): 1845-1858.

Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Reihl, Sheantel J., Nirav Patil, Ramin A. Morshed and Mulki Mehari, et al. "A population study of clinical trial accrual for women and minorities in neuro-oncology following the NIH Revitalization Act." Neuro-oncology 24 (2022): 1341-1349.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. Taha, Birra, Graham Winston, Umberto Tosi and Benjamin Hartley, et al. "Missing diversity in brain tumor trials." Neuro Oncol Adv (2020): vdaa059.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at