Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) contributes significantly to mortality, hospitalisations and health care costs worldwide. There is evidence that the detection, accurate diagnosis and management of COPD are currently suboptimal in primary care. Physiotherapists are well-trained in cardiorespiratory management and chronic care but are currently underutilised in primary care. A cardiorespiratory physiotherapist working in partnership with general practitioners (GPs) has the potential to improve quality of care for people with COPD. Methods A prospective pilot study will test the feasibility of an integrated model of care between GPs and physiotherapists to improve the diagnosis and management of people with COPD in primary care. Four general practices will be selected to work in partnership with four physiotherapists from their local health district. Patients at risk of developing COPD or those with a current diagnosis of COPD will be invited to attend a baseline assessment with the physiotherapist, including pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry to identify new cases of COPD or confirm a current diagnosis and stage of COPD. The intervention for those with COPD will involve the physiotherapist and GP working in partnership to develop and implement a care plan involving the following tailored to patient need: referral to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), physical activity counselling, medication review, smoking cessation, review of inhaler technique and education. Process outcomes will include the number of people invited and reviewed at the practice, the proportion with a new diagnosis of COPD, the number of patients eligible and referred to PR and the number who attended PR. Patient outcomes will include changes in symptoms, physical activity levels, smoking status and self-reported exacerbations. Discussion If feasible, we will test the integration of physiotherapists within the primary care setting in a cluster randomised controlled trial. If the model improves health outcomes for the growing numbers of people with COPD, then it may provide a GP-physiotherapist model of care that could be tested for other chronic conditions. Trial registration ANZCTR, ACTRN12619001127190. Registered on 12 August 2019—retrospectively registered.

Background The COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire (CDQ) was developed to identify people who would benefit from spirometry testing to confirm Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The aim of this study was to determine the usefulness of a cut-off score of 16.5 on the CDQ in identifying those at increased risk of obstruction, in a mixed population of people ‘at risk’ of COPD and those with an ‘existing’ COPD diagnosis. Methods People ‘at risk’ of COPD (aged > 40 years, current/ex-smoker) and those with ‘existing’ COPD were identified from four general practices and invited to participate. Participants completed the CDQ and those with a CDQ score ≥ 16.5 were categorised as having intermediate to increased likelihood of airflow obstruction. Pre and post-bronchodilator spirometry determined the presence of airway obstruction (FEV1/FVC ratio < 0.7). Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the CDQ was determined compared to spirometry as the gold standard. Results One hundred forty-one participants attended an initial assessment (‘at risk’ = 111 (79%), ‘existing’ COPD = 30 (21%)). A cut-off score of 16.5 corresponded to a sensitivity of 81%, specificity of 36% and accuracy of 50%, in the entire mixed population. The area under the ROC curve was 0.59 ± 0.50 indicating low diagnostic accuracy of the CDQ. Similar results were found in the ‘existing’ COPD group alone. Conclusion Whilst a cut-off score of 16.5 on the CDQ may result in a large number of false positives, clinicians may still wish to use the CDQ to refine who receives spirometry due to its high sensitivity. Trial registration ANZCTR, ACTRN12619001127190. Registered 12 August 2019 – Retrospectively registered, http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12619001127190.aspx

Aims To examine the implementation of a physiotherapist-driven spirometry case finding service in primary care to identify new cases of COPD and confirm diagnosis of existing cases of COPD. Methods Four general practices were recruited. ‘At risk’ participants (aged ≥ 40 years, current/ex-smoker) and people with ‘existing’ COPD were identified from practice databases and invited to attend an assessment with a cardiorespiratory physiotherapist in each general practice. The physiotherapist performed pre/post-bronchodilator spirometry to identify or confirm a diagnosis of COPD (FEV1/FVC < 0.7). Outcome measures included number (%) of new cases of COPD, number (%) confirmed diagnosis of COPD and number (%) of high quality spirometry assessments with accurate interpretation. Results One hundred forty eight participants (mean age 70 years (SD 11.1), 57% female) attended a baseline assessment (117 ‘at risk’, 31’existing’ COPD) from 748 people invited. Physiotherapists performed 145 pre/post bronchodilator spirometry assessments. Obstruction on post-bronchodilator spirometry was confirmed in 17% (19/114) of ‘at risk’ and 77% (24/31) of ‘existing’ COPD. Majority of cases were classified as GOLD Stage II (63%, n = 27). Quality of pre/post bronchodilator spirometries for FEV1 were classified as A (68%), B (19%) and C (5%). Conclusion Physiotherapists integrated into primary care performed high quality spirometry testing, successfully case finding ‘at risk’ patients and identifying potential misdiagnosis of obstruction in some ‘existing’ COPD cases. Trial registration ANZCTR, ACTRN12619001127190. Registered 12 August 2019 – Retrospectively registered, http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12619001127190.aspx

Background Evidence suggests that management of people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in primary care has been suboptimal, in particular, with low referral rates to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a GP-physiotherapist partnership in optimising management of COPD in primary care. Methods A pragmatic, pilot, before and after study was conducted in four general practices in Australia. A senior cardiorespiratory physiotherapist was partnered with each general practice. Adults with a history of smoking and/or COPD, aged ≥ 40 years with ≥ 2 practice visits in the previous year were recruited following spirometric confirmation of COPD. Intervention was provided by the physiotherapist at the general practice and included PR referral, physical activity and smoking cessation advice, provision of a pedometer and review of inhaler technique. Intervention occurred at baseline, one month and three months. Main outcomes included PR referral and attendance. Secondary clinical outcomes included changes in COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, dyspnoea, health activation and pedometer step count. Process outcomes included count of initiation of smoking cessation interventions and review of inhaler technique. Results A total of 148 participants attended a baseline appointment where pre/post bronchodilator spirometry was performed. 31 participants with airflow obstruction on post-bronchodilator spirometry (mean age 75yrs (SD 9.3), mean FEV1% pred = 75% (SD 18.6), 61% female) received the intervention. At three months, 78% (21/27) were referred to PR and 38% (8/21) had attended PR. No significant improvements were seen in CAT scores, dyspnoea or health activation. There was no significant change in average daily step count at three months compared to baseline (mean difference (95% CI) -266 steps (-956 to 423), p = 0.43). Where indicated, all participants had smoking cessation interventions initiated and inhaler technique reviewed. Conclusion The results of this study suggest that this model was able to increase referrals to PR from primary care and was successful in implementing some aspects of COPD management, however, was insufficient to improve symptom scores and physical activity levels in people with COPD. Trial registration ANZCTR, ACTRN12619001127190. Registered 12 August 2019 – Retrospectively registered, http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12619001127190.aspx.

IntroductionAddressing clinical variation in elective surgery is challenging. A key issue is how to gain consensus between largely autonomous clinicians. Understanding how the consensus process works to develop and implement perioperative pathways and the impact of these pathways on reducing clinical variation can provide important insights into the effectiveness of the consensus process. The primary objective of this study is to understand the implementation of an organisationally supported, consensus approach to implement perioperative care pathways in a private healthcare facility and to determine its impact.MethodsA mixed-methods Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid (type III) pre–post study will be conducted in one Australian private hospital. Five new consensus-based perioperative care pathways will be developed and implemented for specific patient cohorts: spinal surgery, radical prostatectomy, cardiac surgery, bariatric surgery and total hip and knee replacement. The individual components of these pathways will be confirmed as part of a consensus-building approach and will follow a four-stage implementation process using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment framework. The process of implementation, as well as barriers and facilitators, will be evaluated through semistructured interviews and focus groups with key clinical and non-clinical staff, and participant observation. We anticipate completing 30 interviews and 15–20 meeting observations. Administrative and clinical end-points for at least 152 participants will be analysed to assess the effectiveness of the pathways.Ethics and disseminationThis study received ethical approval from Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Medical Sciences Committee (Reference No: 520221219542374). The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and reports for key stakeholders.