Article

Risk factors for rehospitalisation in COPID: role of health status, anxiety and depression

Uppsala University, Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden
European Respiratory Journal (Impact Factor: 7.13). 10/2005; 26(3):414-9. DOI: 10.1183/09031936.05.00078504
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of the present study was to analyse the risk of rehospitalisation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and associated risk factors. This prospective study included 416 patients from a university hospital in each of the five Nordic countries. Data included demographic information, spirometry, comorbidity and 12 month follow-up for 406 patients. The hospital anxiety and depression scale and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were applied to all patients. The number of patients that had a re-admission within 12 months was 246 (60.6%). Patients that had a re-admission had lower lung function and health status. A low forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and health status were independent predictors for re-admission. Hazard ratio (HR; 95% CI) was 0.82 (0.74-0.90) per 10% increase of the predicted FEV1 and 1.06 (1.02-1.10) per 4 units increase in total SGRQ score. The risk of rehospitalisation was also increased in subjects with anxiety (HR 1.76 (1.16-2.68)) and in subjects with low health status (total SGRQ score >60 units). When comparing the different subscales in the SGRQ, the closest relation between the risk of rehospitalisation was seen with the activity scale (HR 1.07 (1.03-1.11) per 4 unit increase). In patients with low health status, anxiety is an important risk factor for rehospitalisation. This may be important for patient treatment and warrants further studies.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Gunnar Gudmundsson, Jun 23, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
147 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Catastrophizing about breathlessness may be related to disability in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but assessment options are limited. This study reports the initial validation of a 13-item Breathlessness Catastrophizing Scale (BCS). Pulmonary rehabilitation inpatients completed spirometric, functional performance and questionnaire assessments at admission (N=242) and discharge (n=186). The BCS comprised a unifactorial scale that demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=.96) and correlated with measures of anxiety sensitivity, depression, and self-efficacy, but not with performance on walk and stair-climbing tests. BCS scores improved robustly with rehabilitation, approaching a medium effect size (d=.43), and demonstrated a modest association with enhanced performance in a stair-climbing test of exercise tolerance. The BCS is a reliable measure of catastrophizing in severe COPD that has good convergent validity and sensitivity to change. Its association with functional performance requires further investigation. However, it appears that a high level of catastrophizing about breathlessness is not a barrier to functional improvement with inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Psychosomatic Research 12/2014; 79(1). DOI:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.11.020 · 2.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper describes SERVANDO, a distributed open platform that deals with a series of recurrent problems in current telemedicine systems, particularly: (1) the scheduling of the different medical actions that should be executed, organized in a personalized agenda generated from a follow-up protocol; (2) functionality encapsulation and reuse in a set of services; (3) communications between the home of the patient and the hospital, through a flexible scheme for bidirectional message exchange; or (4) the management of the events generated during the monitoring. Supervision of patients is carried out through last generation smartphones. SERVANDO provides comprehensive facilities for generic telemedicine applications development, adaptable according to the disease and the particular characteristics of the patient. At the moment, with validation purposes, a follow-up protocol for the supervision of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been implemented.
    Expert Systems with Applications 06/2013; 40(7-7):2607-2614. DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.11.001 · 1.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim. To report a Delphi study that was conducted to select process and outcome indicators that are relevant to study quality of care and impact of care pathways for patients hospitalized with exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Background. Management of patients hospitalized with exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is suboptimal and outcomes are poor. To evaluate the impact of care pathways properly, relevant indicators need to be selected. Design. Delphi study. Methods. The study was conducted over 4 months in 2008, with 35 experts out of 15 countries, including 19 medical doctors, 8 nurses and 8 physiotherapists. Participants were asked to rate, for 72 process and 21 outcome indicators, the relevance for follow-up in care pathways for in-hospital management of exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Consensus (agreement by at least 75% of the participants) that an indicator is relevant for follow-up was sought in two rounds. Results. Consensus was reached for 26 of 72 process indicators (36.1%) and 10 of 21 outcome indicators (47.6%). Highest consensus levels were found for the process indicators regarding oxygen therapy (100%), pulmonary rehabilitation (100%) and patient education (94.588.6%) and for the outcome indicators concerning understanding of therapy (91.485.7%) and self-management (88.688.2%). Conclusion. The selected indicators appear to be sensitive for improvement. Therefore, researchers and clinicians that want to study and improve the care for patients hospitalized with exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease should primarily focus on these indicators.
    Journal of Advanced Nursing 06/2012; 69(2). DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06013.x · 1.69 Impact Factor