Telecare asthma reviews: comparison with standard care
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Conducting annual asthma reviews using telehealthcare: comparison with standard care (face-to-face consultations).
IRAS ID
169029
Contact name
David Jackson
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Imperial College Research Governance Manager, Joint Research Compliance Office
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 10 months, 0 days
Research summary
Asthma care in the UK is substandard and the mortality rate is one of the highest in Europe. The National Review of Asthma Deaths (NRAD) was published in May 2014. This found that there was room for improvement in the care received by 83% of those who had died; 46% of deaths could have been avoided if patients had been better managed in the year before they had died.
The majority of patients with asthma are managed in primary care. The NRAD made a number of recommendations regarding how patients with asthma should be managed. The 'asthma review' is key as this is an opportunity to assess patients asthma control, tailor management to the patient and provide appropriate education and counselling.
Many patients do not attend for an asthma review. When patients do attend, asthma reviews are often of poor quality.
To reduce asthma morbidity and mortality, it is essential that primary care finds ways to engage with patients, to increase the number of patients that attends for an asthma review, and to improve the quality of care that is received when patients do attend.
Telehealthcare is an alternative way to conduct asthma reviews, for which there is accumulating evidence of benefit. It's possible that patients will find this more convenient than attending the surgery for a face-to-face review.
This will be a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the use of telehealhcare (telephone consultations and e-mail) to conduct annual asthma reviews for adult patients who have not had one in the previous 12 months. The service will be compared with standard care (clinic reviews).
The reasons for prior non-attendance will be explored. The quality of care received will be assessed using a patient satisfaction questionnaire. Clinical outcomes will be monitored to ensure no increased risk of adverse event in the study group.REC name
London - City & East Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
15/LO/0524
Date of REC Opinion
5 May 2015
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion