Evaluating the use of the Australian and New Zealand COPD guidelines (The COPD-X Plan) in clinical practice: a user survey

Juliet Brown, Eli Dabscheck, Johnson George, Kelcie Herrmann, Susan C. Jenkins, Christine F. Mcdonald, Vanessa M. Mcdonald, Brian J. Smith, Nicholas Zwar, Ian A. Yang

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting AbstractResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Clinical guidelines provide recommendations on best practice care across specific diseases. This cross-sectional online survey investigated health professional opinions on The COPD-X Plan: Australian and New Zealand guidelines for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The survey explored familiarity, uptake, barriers to use, clinical practice application and use in quality improvement initiatives.

There were 296 survey responses primarily from Australia. Nurses were the largest user group (43%), followed by allied health professionals (27%), GPs (15%) and respiratory specialists (9%). 62% of respondents treated COPD patients daily. 38% of respondents were familiar with COPD-X, with 16% very familiar. 20% identified barriers to use including difficult format, preference for another guideline and lack of interest/time, especially in primary care. 91% agreed COPD-X was applicable to health professionals other than respiratory specialists and was relevant to clinical practice. 89% reported COPD-X improved their knowledge and understanding of COPD management; 85% believed COPD-X supported the delivery of patient-centred care; 85% also said it was relevant across hospital, primary and community care settings and 81% said it was applicable to geographically diverse healthcare settings.

Survey responses indicated positive opinions regarding impact and relevance of COPD-X to COPD management. However, opinions varied on the optimal format of a clinical guideline. A report of recommendations will follow to improve usability and uptake of COPD-X. Initial observations indicate greater promotion and further engagement with health professionals will be key.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages2
JournalEuropean Respiratory Journal
Volume56
Issue numberSuppl 64
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Sep 2020

Cite this