a pulmonary rehabilitation decisional score to define priority access for copd patients

Clicks: 92
ID: 196147
2017
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #47 of 50 articles by views in Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
This retrospective study aimed to evaluate, through an ad hoc 17-item tool, the Pulmonary Rehabilitation Decisional Score (PRDS), the priority access to PR prescription by respiratory specialists. The PRDS, scoring functional, clinical, disability, frailty, and participation parameters from 0 = low priority to 34 = very high priority for PR access, was retrospectively calculated on 124 specialist reports sent to the GP of subjects (aged 71±11 years, FEV1%  51±17) consecutively admitted to our respiratory outpatient clinic. From the specialist’s report the final subject’s allocation could be low priority (LP) (>60 days), high priority (HP) (30–60 days), or very high priority (VHP) (<30 days) to rehabilitation. The PRDS calculation showed scores significantly higher in VHP versus LP (p<0.001) and significantly different between HP and VHP (p<0.001). Comparing the specialist’s allocation decision and priority choice based on PRDS cut-offs, PR prescription was significantly more appropriate in VHP than in HP (p=0.016). Specialists underprescribed PR in 49% of LP cases and overprescribed it in 46% and 30% of the HP and VHP prescriptions, respectively. A multicomprehensive score is feasible being useful for staging the clinical priorities for PR prescription and facilitating sustainability of the health system.
Reference Key
vitacca2017rehabilitationa Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Michele Vitacca, Laura Comini, Marilena Barbisoni, Gloria Francolini, Mara Paneroni, Jean Pierre Ramponi
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing
Year 2017
DOI
10.1155/2017/5710676
URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/5710676
Keywords
Medicine (General)

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.