“
“Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate inhaler technique and symptom control in patients with poorly controlled asthma at baseline and at follow-up in a dedicated asthma clinic in a tertiary hospital. We also investigated the impact of asthma on these patients’ quality of life. Methods: Patients referred to a newly established asthma clinic in Cork University Hospital were prospectively recruited over a 6-month period. Their

inhaler technique was assessed by a pulmonary nurse specialist using a validated scoring system. They received instruction on inhaler usage when scores were suboptimal. Patients completed a validated asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) click here and asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ). At follow-up 3-4 months later, the inhaler technique was reassessed and the ACQ questionnaire

repeated. Results: Forty-six patients were recruited (female = 74%), and 40/46 were followed up. Mean [SD] FEV1 % predicted at baseline = 76.5% [21.5]. About 63% of the patients were classified as incorrectly using their inhaler at their initial assessment. This decreased to 20% at follow-up, indicating an overall significant improvement in inhaler usage post-training (p = 0.003). check details ACQ scores improved significantly from median [interquartile range] 2.70 [1.66] to 2.00 [1.90] (p = 0.002). Baseline measurement indicated that patients’ quality of life

was moderately affected by asthma, with a median AQLQ score of 4.75 [1.97]. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the importance of educating and formally assessing inhaler technique in patients with asthma as a part of their ongoing clinical review.”
“Objective: To compare the efficiency and differential costs of telephone- vs. mail-based assessments of outcome in patients registered in a national clinical quality of care registry, the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR).

Study Design and Setting: The participants admitted to hospital with Selleckchem SNX-5422 stroke or transient ischemic attack were randomly assigned to complete a health questionnaire by mail or telephone interview at 3-6 months postevent. Response rate, researcher burden, and costs of each method were compared.

Results: Compared with the participants in the mail questionnaire arm (n = 277; 50% female; mean age: 70 years), those in the telephone arm (n = 282; 45% female; mean age: 68 years) required a shorter time to complete the follow-up (mean difference: 24.2 days; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.0, 33.5 days). However, the average cost of completing a telephone follow-up was greater (US$20.87 vs. US$13.86) and had a similar overall response to the mail method (absolute difference: 0.57%; 95% CI: -4.8%, 6%).