Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Pharmacy Asthma Care Program (PACP) improves outcomes for patients in the community
  1. Carol Armour1,
  2. Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich1,
  3. Martha Brillant1,
  4. Debbie Burton2,
  5. Lynne Emmerton3,
  6. Ines Krass1,
  7. Bandana Saini1,
  8. Lorraine Smith1,
  9. Kay Stewart4
  1. 1Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2School of Biomedical Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Orange, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3School of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  4. 4Victorian College of Pharmacy, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to:
    Professor Carol Armour
    Faculty of Pharmacy, Pharmacy Building A15, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia; carola{at}pharm.usyd.edu.au

Abstract

Background: Despite national disease management plans, optimal asthma management remains a challenge in Australia. Community pharmacists are ideally placed to implement new strategies that aim to ensure asthma care meets current standards of best practice. The impact of the Pharmacy Asthma Care Program (PACP) on asthma control was assessed using a multi-site randomised intervention versus control repeated measures study design.

Methods: Fifty Australian pharmacies were randomised into two groups: intervention pharmacies implemented the PACP (an ongoing cycle of assessment, goal setting, monitoring and review) to 191 patients over 6 months, while control pharmacies gave their usual care to 205 control patients. Both groups administered questionnaires and conducted spirometric testing at baseline and 6 months later. The main outcome measure was asthma severity/control status.

Results: 186 of 205 control patients (91%) and 165 of 191 intervention patients (86%) completed the study. The intervention resulted in improved asthma control: patients receiving the intervention were 2.7 times more likely to improve from “severe” to “not severe” than control patients (OR 2.68, 95% CI 1.64 to 4.37; p<0.001). The intervention also resulted in improved adherence to preventer medication (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.30; p = 0.03), decreased mean daily dose of reliever medication (difference −149.11 μg, 95% CI −283.87 to −14.36; p = 0.03), a shift in medication profile from reliever only to a combination of preventer, reliever with or without long-acting β agonist (OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.40 to 10.32; p = 0.01) and improved scores on risk of non-adherence (difference −0.44, 95% CI −0.69 to −0.18; p = 0.04), quality of life (difference −0.23, 95% CI −0.46 to 0.00; p = 0.05), asthma knowledge (difference 1.18, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.63; p<0.01) and perceived control of asthma questionnaires (difference −1.39, 95% CI −2.44 to −0.35; p<0.01). No significant change in spirometric measures occurred in either group.

Conclusions: A pharmacist-delivered asthma care programme based on national guidelines improves asthma control. The sustainability and implementation of the programme within the healthcare system remains to be investigated.

  • FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 s
  • FVC, forced vital capacity
  • NAC, National Asthma Council
  • PACP, Pharmacy Asthma Care Program
  • PhARIA, Pharmacy Access/Remoteness Index of Australia
  • QCPP, Quality Care Pharmacy Program
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Published Online First 24 January 2007

  • This work was funded by the Australian Department of Health and Ageing as part of the Third Community Pharmacy Agreement. The funding source had no involvement in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of this paper; nor in the decision to submit this paper for publication.

  • Competing interests: None.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.