Background Reports of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) use in clinical practice reveal higher mortality rates than in corresponding randomised clinical trials.

COPD exacerbations resulting in hospitalization are accompanied by high mortality and morbidity. The contribution of specific co-morbidities to acute outcomes is not known in detail: existing studies have used either administrative data or small clinical cohorts and have provided conflicting results. Identification of co-existent diseases that affect outcomes provides opportunities to address these conditions proactively and improve overall COPD care. Cases were identified prospectively on admission then underwent retrospective case note audit to collect data including co-morbidities on up to 60 unselected consecutive acute COPD admissions between March and May in each hospital participating in the 2008 UK National COPD audit. Outcomes recorded were death in hospital, length of stay, and death and readmission at 90 days after index admission. 232 hospitals collected data on 9716 patients, mean age 73, 50% male, mean FEV1 42% predicted. Prevalence of co-morbidities were associated with increased age but better FEV1 and ex-smoker status and with worse outcomes for all four measures. Hospital mortality risk was increased with cor pulmonale, left ventricular failure, neurological conditions and non-respiratory malignancies whilst 90 day death was also increased by lung cancer and arrhythmias. Ischaemic and other heart diseases were important factors in readmission. This study demonstrates that co-morbidities adversely affect a range of short-term patient outcomes related to acute admission to hospital with exacerbations of COPD. Recognition of relevant accompanying diseases at admission provides an opportunity for specific interventions that may improve short-term prognosis.

No abstract

-Peer review has been widely employed within the NHS to facilitate health quality improvement but has not been rigorously evaluated. This article reports the largest randomised trial of peer review ever conducted in the UK. The peer review intervention was a reciprocal supportive exercise that included clinicians, hospital management, commissioners and patients which focused on the quality of the provision of four specific evidence-based aspects of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease care. Follow up at 12 months demonstrated few quantitative differences in the number or quality of services offered in the two groups. Qualitative data in contrast suggested many benefits of peer review in most but not all intervention units and some control teams. Findings suggest peer review in this format is a positive experience for most participants but is ineffective in some situations. Its longer term benefits and cost effectiveness require further study. The generic findings of this study have potential implications for the application of peer review throughout the NHS.

Overall improvements in resources and organization are accompanied by reduced mortality, shorter admissions and greater access to specialist services. There remains, however, considerable variation in the quality of secondary care provided between units.