0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review Article |

Systematic Review of the Chronic Care Model in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Prevention and Management FREE

Sandra G. Adams, MD, MS; Paulla K. Smith, RRT; Patrick F. Allan, MD; Antonio Anzueto, MD; Jacqueline A. Pugh, MD; John E. Cornell, PhD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine (Drs Adams, Anzueto, and Pugh and Ms Smith) and Division of Pulmonary Diseases/Critical Care Medicine (Drs Adams and Anzueto and Ms Smith), The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio; VERDICT (Drs Adams, Pugh, and Cornell and Ms Smith) and Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (Dr Cornell), South Texas Veterans Health Care System, and Pulmonary Medicine, Wilford-Hall Medical Center (Dr Allan), San Antonio, Tex.


Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(6):551-561. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.6.551.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Implementation of the chronic care model (CCM) has been shown to be an effective preventative strategy to improve outcomes in diabetes mellitus, depression, and congestive heart failure, but data are lacking regarding the effectiveness of this model in preventing complications in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Methods  We searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases from inception to August 2005 and included English-language articles that enrolled adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and (1) contained intervention(s) with CCM component(s), (2) included a comparison group or measures at 2 points (before/after), and (3) had relevant outcomes. Two reviewers independently extracted data.

Results  Symptoms, quality of life, lung function, and functional status were not significantly different between the intervention and control groups. However, pooled relative risks (95% confidence intervals) for emergency/unscheduled visits and hospitalizations for the group that received at least 2 CCM components were 0.58 (0.42-0.79) and 0.78 (0.66-0.94), respectively. The weighted mean difference (95% confidence interval) for hospital stay was −2.51 (−3.40 to −1.61) days shorter for the group that received 2 or more components. There were no significant differences for those receiving only 1 CCM component.

Conclusions  Limited published data exist evaluating the efficacy of CCM components in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management. However, pooled data demonstrated that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who received interventions with 2 or more CCM components had lower rates of hospitalizations and emergency/unscheduled visits and a shorter length of stay compared with control groups. The results of this review highlight the need for well-designed trials in this population.

Figures in this Article

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects about 30 million Americans, represents the fourth leading cause of death, and costs $37.2 billion annually.13 Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) often require hospitalization and result in significant morbidity. In 2000, COPD and AECOPD were responsible for 8 million outpatient visits, 1.5 million emergency department (ED) visits, more than 725 000 hospitalizations, and nearly 120 000 deaths.1 Pharmacotherapy has been shown to reduce AECOPD episodes by approximately 22% to 26%.4

Because COPD and other chronic illnesses represent an inordinate burden to health care resources, attention is often allocated to acute disease treatment as opposed to possibly more efficacious and cost-effective means of exacerbation prevention.5 For example, COPD management is often tailored to treating AECOPD episodes, while minimal effort is expended to educate patients or health care systems about preventing exacerbations. This may lead to inappropriate resource use. Accentuating the disconnect between current health care systems and “ideal” care that may be attainable for chronic illness management, the Institute of Medicine has noted that “the current care systems cannot do the job,” “trying harder will not work,” but “changing care systems will.”6(p4),7 Therefore, a multidisciplinary organized approach to preventative COPD management is needed.

The chronic care model (CCM) has been a proposed solution to improve management, prevention of complications, and outcomes in patients with chronic diseases.8 This model identifies essential elements that encourage high-quality chronic disease care.5,810 These elements involve the community and health system and include self-management support, delivery system design, decision support, and clinical information systems. The model fosters productive interactions between informed patients who actively participate in their care and experienced providers (nurses, physicians, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, etc), resulting in a broadly applicable, higher quality, and possibly more cost-effective patient care environment. Systematic reviews and clinical studies11,12 have demonstrated that implementing the CCM components in patients with chronic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, depression, asthma, and congestive heart failure, is associated with significantly improved outcomes. However, little is known about the effects of implementing this model in patients with COPD, because the CCM has not been systematically evaluated in this population. Therefore, we set out to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to determine the following: (1) which CCM components have been implemented in patients with COPD and (2) what combination of CCM components is associated with improved outcomes.

LITERATURE SEARCH

We identified English-language articles in adults from the following databases: MEDLINE (1966-August 2005, week 1), CINAHL (1982-August 2005, week 1), and Cochrane (second quarter, 2005). Search terms were disease management, case management, chronic disease, self-care, self-management, or patient education and lung diseases, obstructive, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, chronic obstructive airway disease, COAD, chronic obstructive lung disease, COLD, emphysema, or chronic bronchitis. We further augmented this search by (1) reviewing references of the identified articles and reviews, (2) hand searching abstracts from national conferences from January 1995 to May 2005, and (3) communicating with experts.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers (S.G.A. and J.A.P.) independently selected studies for inclusion, with the following predetermined criteria: (1) contained intervention(s) with at least 1 CCM component, (2) included a control or comparison group or at least 1 outcome measured at 2 points (before/after), and (3) had relevant outcome(s) (ie, knowledge, dyspnea, quality of life [QOL], lung function, performance-based test [eg, 6-minute walk test], health care use [eg, emergency/unscheduled visits, hospitalizations, or length of stay {LOS}], clinical end point [eg, mortality or number of AECOPD], or cost). Agreement was examined, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. We excluded articles designed to evaluate the impact of specific therapeutic measures, such as oral or inhaled bronchodilator therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation, and supplemental oxygen therapy, because these therapies are considered to be “standard of care” and are beyond the scope of this review. Two reviewers (S.G.A. and P.K.S.) independently (1) extracted data on a standardized abstraction form created for this study and (2) applied the US Preventive Services Task Force rating for each randomized controlled trial (RCT). We categorized the interventions based on the CCM components (Table 1).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Interventions Categorized Into the Components of the Chronic Care Model
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Outcome results were entered into a spreadsheet (Excel; Microsoft, Redmond, Wash) and were imported into statistical software (Stata, version 8).13 We performed statistical analyses only on RCTs. For each group of outcomes, such as functional status and performance measures, studies were grouped by category and either a relative risk (RR) or a mean difference was computed. In the instances in which outcomes were assessed using similar measures by at least 3 RCTs, outcome results were pooled after adjusting for study size and precision. Estimates were obtained for fixed- and random-effects models. For consistency, we report only the random-effect estimates. We used the I2 statistic14 and the Cochran Q statistic15 to assess study heterogeneity. We also recomputed pooled estimates with and without studies that produced extreme results. An I2 statistic of 50% or greater indicates that substantial heterogeneity exists among study estimates. We used the Mantel-Haenszel method to compute random-effect estimates for RRs and the DerSimonian and Laird16 method to compute random-effect estimates for weighted mean or standardized mean differences when the studies were heterogeneous. Funnel plots were inspected for evidence of publication bias.

TRIAL RETRIEVAL

The search identified 534 titles that, when independently assessed by 2 reviewers, resulted in 82 potentially relevant articles and an additional 3 nonduplicate articles from references, national conferences, and experts (Figure). Only 32 studies reported in 37 articles3,1752 were suitable for full abstraction and review. These studies were clinically heterogeneous, used many different interventions, and measured various outcomes53,54 (Table 2).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Study flow diagram. COPD indicates chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Graphic Jump Location
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Characteristics of Studies Included in a Systematic Review of Components of the Chronic Care Model in Patients With COPD
STUDY DESIGNS

Of 32 studies, 20 included in this systematic review were RCTs.17,2026,28,3141Table 2 summarizes study population characteristics, interventions, methodological quality, and outcome measures of these studies.54 Only 1 study39 randomized physicians rather than patients. Of 20 RCTs, 14 involved interventions that addressed only 1 CCM component, predominantly self-management.17,2026,28,31,32,37,40,41Table 3 summarizes the CCM components addressed with each study intervention.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Individual Components of the Chronic Illness Care Model for Each Study*
METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF INCLUDED STUDIES

Because blinding is impossible in educational/behavioral studies, no studies were double blinded. We evaluated if outcome assessors were blinded to treatment allocation, in addition to all other US Preventive Services Task Force criteria for each RCT.55 Only 1 study34 met all criteria for “good” quality. Four trials20,35,39,40 had 1 or more methodological problems, but did not have a fatal flaw and were, therefore, rated as “fair.” In contrast, 15 of 20 RCTs had 1 or more fatal flaws and were of “poor” quality (eTable 1).17,2126,28,3133,3638,41

Table Graphic Jump LocationeTable 1. Quality of Included Randomized, Controlled Studies*
TYPES OF INTERVENTIONS

Various interventions were evaluated in these studies (Table 2 and Table 3). All but 4 studies37,43,49,52 included interventions of self-management (Table 3). Eighteen studies3,17,20,23,24,26,31,33,34,36,3841,45,46,50,51 targeted individual patients, 6 studies25,32,35,42,47,48 targeted groups, and 4 studies21,22,28,44 provided interventions to individuals and groups. The intervention duration varied among studies: from 15 minutes21 to more than 80 hours32 (mean, 9.5 hours; median, 7.25 hours) (Table 2). In addition, follow-up length ranged from 6 weeks48 to 2 years44,50 (mean, 10 months; median, 12 months) (Table 2). Ten studies17,26,28,31,32,3436,39,46 excluded patients with significant cardiac disease (congestive heart failure and/or ischemic heart disease).

STATISTICAL HETEROGENEITY

We observed less statistical heterogeneity among studies than expected given the degree of clinical heterogeneity. Modest statistical heterogeneity was observed for multicomponent interventions reporting data on hospitalization (I2 = 39.3%), but self-management studies reporting data on anxiety (I2 = 63.4%) and the 6-minute walk test (I2 = 93.1%) were heterogeneous. Given relative interstudy homogeneity for most of our outcomes, the results of the fixed- and random-effects models are nearly identical, so the results of the more conservative random-effects models are presented.

OUTCOMES OF DATA SYNTHESIS
Knowledge

Participants' knowledge significantly improved in the intervention group in 4 RCTs21,32,33,36 and 1 controlled cohort trial (CCT),44 and was not significantly different from the control group in 4 studies.17,22,23,41 However, only 1 study32 used a standardized instrument.54

Dyspnea

Pooled results from 3 RCTs17,25,31 that used the Borg dyspnea scale demonstrated a statistically significant, but clinically insignificant, improvement in dyspnea (mean change, −0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.09 to −0.18). The other 4 studies39,41,45,48 used other dyspnea scales, but were without significant differences between groups.

Quality of Life

Ten RCTs17,20,2326,28,31,32,40 included interventions with only 1 CCM component and used multiple disease-specific and general QOL measures; therefore, pooling results was not possible for most of these studies (Table 2). Two trials31,40 demonstrated clinically and statistically significant improvements in QOL, but the remaining 8 studies17,20,2326,28,32 did not. Six RCTs3336,38,39 included interventions with 2 or more CCM components, and 43335,38 measured the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire at baseline and follow-up. Pooled results did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores between intervention and control groups (eTable 2).

Table Graphic Jump LocationeTable 2. Intervention Differences in Change in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire Scores Among RCTs*

Pooled results of the 3 RCTs24,25,32 that included only a self-management component did not demonstrate significant improvement in anxiety or depression in the intervention groups (eTable 3). However, in the CCT by Neff et al,45 the intervention group had significantly fewer depressive symptoms.

Table Graphic Jump LocationeTable 3. Intervention Differences in Changes in Standardized Anxiety and Depression Measures
Lung Function

Six RCTs24,26,28,32,37,39 evaluated a common measurement of lung function (change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, percentage of the predicted value). The pooled results from the 5 studies24,26,28,32,37 that evaluated only 1 component did not demonstrate significant change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, percentage of the predicted value (eTable 4). However, the 1 study39 that evaluated all 4 CCM components demonstrated a mean change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 7.50, percentage of the predicted value, between the intervention and control groups.

Table Graphic Jump LocationeTable 4. Intervention Differences in Mean Change in FEV1 Values*
Performance-Based Measures

Of 5 studies24,25,31,35,39 that evaluated performance measures, 424,25,31,35 used the 6-minute walk test. Overall, the pooled results from the 3 studies24,25,31 that included only the self-management CCM component demonstrated no significant improvement in the 6-minute walk test: mean (95% CI) of 84.36 (−82.15 to 250.87). The 2 studies35,39 with multiple CCM components did not demonstrate significant improvements in any tested performance measures.

Mortality

Three RCTs35,36,39 that evaluated mortality involved multiple CCM components, and 4 RCTs23,24,37,41 included only 1 component. Pooled results did not demonstrate differences in mortality for any intervention (Table 4).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Relative Risk of Mortality Among Intervention Patients Relative to Control Patients*
Health Care Use
ED/Unscheduled Visits

The pooled results of the 3 RCTs33,34,36 that implemented multiple CCM components and reported ED/unscheduled visits demonstrated a significant reduction in these visits (RR [95% CI], 0.58 [0.42-0.79]) in the intervention groups compared with controls (Table 5). These 3 trials (1) involved 2,33 5,36 and 834 sessions with a nurse who taught self-management skills, (2) provided advanced access to care, (3) used guideline-based care, and (4) included communications between the nurse and the subject's physician. The trial by Bourbeau and colleagues34 also included an action plan, individualized for each subject in the intervention group.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Relative Risk of Emergency Department/Unscheduled Visits for Intervention Patients Relative to Control Patients*

This pattern (of lower ED/unscheduled visits in the intervention group of studies that included multiple CCM components) was also present in studies with other designs (1 CCT45 and 3 before/ after studies3,49,51). The 1 study of only 1 CCM component (self-management) that reported ED/unscheduled visits was an RCT,17 and did not demonstrate a significant difference between groups (Table 5).

Hospitalizations

Seven RCTs (3 trials17,23,24 with 1 CCM component and 433,34,36,39 with multiple components) reported hospitalizations in a manner that could be pooled (Table 6). The RR for hospitalization was not significantly different between the intervention and control groups in the studies17,23,24 that involved only 1 CCM component (Table 6). In contrast, the pooled results of the 4 RCTs33,34,36,39 that implemented multiple CCM components demonstrated significant reductions in hospitalizations in the intervention groups (RR [95% CI], 0.78 [0.66-0.94]). Three of these trials33,34,36 are the same trials listed previously in the “ED/Unscheduled Visits” subsection of this section. The fourth trial39 implemented all CCM components (as listed in Table 1).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 6. Relative Risk of Hospitalization for Intervention Patients Relative to Control Patients*

Five other RCTs20,37,38,40,41 reported hospitalizations in various ways that could not be pooled (eg, rehospitalizations, mean hospitalizations per patient per month, and combined with ED visits). Four of these RCTs involved only 1 CCM component, and 2 trials37,41 demonstrated significant reductions in hospitalizations of the intervention groups, while the other 2 studies20,40 reported no significant differences. The results of 2 CCTs involving multiple CCM components were split: one45 demonstrated lower respiratory-related rehospitalizations in the intervention group, while the other46 reported no significant differences. All 4 before/after design studies3,4951 involving multiple CCM components demonstrated significant reductions in hospitalizations in the intervention groups.

Mean Hospital LOS

Four RCTs23,24,28,37 that involved 1 CCM component demonstrated no significant differences in mean hospital LOS between intervention and control groups. However, the pooled results of 2 RCTs34,36 that involved multiple CCM components demonstrated significantly shorter hospital LOS for the intervention groups (weighted mean difference, −2.51 [95% CI, −3.40 to −1.61] days) compared with control groups. The 2 CCTs45,46 that reported LOS and involved multiple CCM components demonstrated significantly shorter LOS in the intervention compared with control group. Both before/after studies49,52 that reported LOS also demonstrated a significant reduction in LOS in the intervention groups.

Cost

Four RCTs28,36,37,41 reported cost data in non-US currencies. Three trials36,37,41 demonstrated a range of 34% to 70% reduction in health care costs in the intervention groups, predominantly because of reduced hospitalizations, and the other trial28 demonstrated a trend toward reduced cost. The 3 before/after studies49,51,52 reporting cost information (in US dollars) demonstrated an 11% to 23% reduction in cost after implementing the intervention.

Despite the fact that the CCM is a successful preventative strategy in other chronic illnesses, such as diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, and asthma, our systematic review demonstrates that there are limited published data evaluating the CCM components in patients with COPD. However, our review of available data suggests that an effective preventative strategy to reduce health care use (unscheduled/emergency center visits, number of hospitalizations, and hospital LOS) for patients with COPD is to implement 2 or more CCM components. The trials that resulted in reduced health care use provided the following: (1) an extensive self-management program33,34,36,39 with an individualized action plan34,39; (2) “advanced” access to care, which consisted of a knowledgeable health care provider33,34,36,39; (3) guideline-based therapy34,39; and (4) a clinical registry system.39

To our knowledge, this systematic review is unique in that it is the first comprehensive evaluation of the utility of CCM components in COPD management. Three other systematic reviews5658 on COPD management have evaluated portions of related interventions, but not in the context of the CCM. Monninkhof and colleagues56 demonstrated that self-management education in patients with COPD did not improve hospitalizations, emergency visits, or lung function, and demonstrated inconclusive results for QOL and COPD symptoms. We believe that our results are entirely consistent with their findings in that studies17,2026,28,31,32,4042,44,47,48 identified for our review that used the self-management component only also did not show an effect on QOL or use outcomes. Taylor and colleagues58(p5) evaluated RCTs of self-management in COPD and also found no differences in QOL at 12 months, lung function, number of exacerbations, or mortality, but they reported that emergency visits “may be reduced.” Many studies included in these reviews (and our own review) had incomplete descriptions of interventions, and the self-management interventions were often limited in intensity (half had an intervention duration of <7.25 hours). Known to be efficacious cognitive-behavioral approaches to smoking cessation, medication and oxygen compliance and exercise had limited application in many studies. In addition, only 7 studies included all 3 elements of self-management (education, behavioral changes, and motivation), whereas most studies were aimed at changing only the participants' knowledge of the disease (ie, education alone is known to be necessary, but not sufficient, to change behavior). Another systematic review57 involved disease management programs in various chronic diseases, including COPD, and was also consistent with our results regarding single-component interventions. Only 7 COPD studies met their inclusion criteria. They pooled results of 3 studies, which included only self-management interventions, and did not demonstrate improved outcomes.57

The CCM has been promoted as a unified management package, but there is still conflicting evidence regarding the necessity of implementing the entire package with every chronic illness or whether some components of the model are more effective in some disease states. In a review of studies of diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, asthma, and depression, Tsai and colleagues12 found that even the implementation of a single component was associated with significantly improved clinical and process-of-care outcomes, but not QOL. We suspect that self-management interventions in this review were more powerful (eg, 29% of these studies included depression treatment) and were more likely to have been theory based, including cognitive-behavioral therapy. In contrast, eligible studies for our systematic review for COPD used relatively weak self-management interventions. A large ongoing evaluation of implementing CCM packages, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and performed by RAND (available at: http://www.rand.org/health/projects/icice), may contribute to our understanding of the CCM, but none of these focus on COPD.

The limitations of this systematic review are predominately due to the methodological problems of the underlying literature. Our extensive search strategy identified a paucity of published literature evaluating chronic care interventions in patients with COPD. We implemented a similar search strategy to that used for our systematic review in COPD, but replaced the COPD terms with diabetes mellitus terms. In contrast to the 534 titles identified by the COPD search, the diabetes mellitus search yielded 3767 titles. Because of this relative paucity, we included CCTs and before/after intervention studies in our review. We encountered a phenomenon found across the medical intervention literature: before/after studies tended to have more positive results than RCTs.59,60 However, we only included RCTs in the pooled results, whereas we descriptively summarized the other study design results. Overall, these studies had a high degree of clinical heterogeneity, in terms of types and duration of interventions, settings, measures, length of follow-up, and outcomes. However, some common elements in the heterogeneous interventions demonstrated a favorable effect. In addition, with the limited number of available studies, we could not determine the optimal combination, specific types, and duration of the interventions. However, the 2 trials34,39 that included a comprehensive self-management program with an individualized action plan provided advanced access to care, and guideline-based therapy had the most significant effect on reducing health care use in patients with COPD.

The results of this systematic review highlight the need for high-quality and well-designed trials implementing the CCM in patients with COPD and suggest an agenda for future research in this area. Studies with better-defined and more powerful theory-based interventions should be undertaken to identify the most important elements for improving outcomes and preventing complications in patients with COPD. One notable deficiency that was only addressed in 6 studies in our review includes psychiatric illnesses, which are particularly important in patients with COPD.61,62 In a recent cross-sectional study,63 80% of patients with chronic breathing disorders screened positive for depression, anxiety, or both by the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME MD) questionnaire. Of the subpopulation with COPD, 65% had an anxiety and/or depressive disorder diagnosis confirmed on further testing. Only a minority of those identified with anxiety and/or depression had a diagnosis in their chart, and only 31% were receiving treatment.63 Similarly, heart disease is common (≤45%) in patients with COPD; yet, concomitant heart disease was an exclusion criterion for 10 studies and was not reported to be in the management plan in any of the studies. The identification and management of these important comorbidities may likely be critical additions to implement a truly comprehensive and “ideal” CCM for COPD. Finally, comparing comprehensive packages with all components vs limited packages will be important to ascertain which elements are most beneficial in COPD. These should include well-designed economic analyses to aid policy makers in decisions regarding widespread implementation of such packages.

In conclusion, the published data evaluating the CCM components in COPD are limited, but suggest that patients with COPD who received interventions with 2 or more CCM components had fewer unscheduled/emergency center visits, fewer hospitalizations, and reduced hospital LOS compared with the control groups. Our findings from this systematic review and the success of similar programs in other chronic diseases highlight the need for well-designed trials implementing multiple components of the CCM to prevent complications and improve outcomes in patients with COPD.

Correspondence: Sandra G. Adams, MD, MS, Pulmonary Diseases Section (111E), Audie L. Murphy Memorial Veterans Hospital, 7400 Merton Minter Blvd, San Antonio, TX 78229 (adamssg@uthscsa.edu).

Accepted for Publication: December 3, 2006.

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Adams, Smith, Anzueto, and Pugh. Acquisition of data: Adams and Smith. Analysis and interpretation of data: Adams, Smith, Allan, Anzueto, Pugh, and Cornell. Drafting of the manuscript: Adams, Smith, Allan, Pugh, and Cornell. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Adams, Allan, Anzueto, Pugh, and Cornell. Statistical analysis: Cornell. Obtained funding: Adams and Pugh. Administrative, technical, and material support: Adams, Smith, and Allan. Study supervision: Anzueto and Pugh.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Previous Presentation: This study was presented as a poster at theAmerican College of Chest Physicians Meeting; November 2, 2005; Montreal, Quebec.

Additional Information: The online-only eTable 1, eTable 2, eTable 3, and eTable 4 are available.

Mannino  DMHoma  DMAkinbami  LJFord  ESRedd  SC Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease surveillance: United States, 1971-2000. MMWR Surveill Summ 2002;511- 16
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Morbidity and mortality: 2004 chart book on cardiovascular, lung, and blood diseases. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/04a_chtbk.pdf. Accessed December 22, 2005
Tinkelman  DCorsello  PMcClure  DYin  M One-year outcomes from a disease management program for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2003;1149- 59
Sin  DDMcAlister  FAMan  SFAnthonisen  NR Contemporary management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: scientific review. JAMA 2003;2902301- 2312
PubMed
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Improving chronic illness care. http://www.improvingchroniccare.org. Accessed November 20, 2005
 Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.  Washington, DC National Academy Press2001;
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Crossing the quality chasm: the IOM health care quality initiative. http://www.iom.edu. Accessed October 20, 2005
Wagner  EHAustin  BTVon Korff  M Improving outcomes in chronic illness. Manag Care Q 1996;412- 25
PubMed
Wagner  EH Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Eff Clin Pract 1998;12- 4
PubMed
Wagner  EHDavis  CSchaefer  JVon Korff  MAustin  B A survey of leading chronic disease management programs: are they consistent with the literature? Manag Care Q 1999;756- 66
PubMed
Bodenheimer  TWagner  EHGrumbach  K Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness: the chronic care model, part 2. JAMA 2002;2881909- 1914
PubMed
Tsai  ACMorton  SCMangione  CMKeeler  EB A meta-analysis of interventions to improve care for chronic illnesses. Am J Manag Care 2005;11478- 488
PubMed
 StataCorp 2003. Stata statistical software: release 8.0.  College Station, Tex StataCorp2003;
Higgins  JPThompson  SG Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;211539- 1558
PubMed
Cochran  WG The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954;10101- 129
DerSimonian  RLaird  N Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7177- 188
PubMed
Gourley  DRGourley  GASolomon  DK  et al.  Development, implementation, and evaluation of a multicenter pharmaceutical care outcomes study. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 1998;38567- 573
PubMed
Solomon  DKPortner  TSBass  GE  et al.  Clinical and economic outcomes in the hypertension and COPD arms of a multicenter outcomes study. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 1998;38574- 585
PubMed
Gourley  GAPortner  TSGourley  DR  et al.  Humanistic outcomes in the hypertension and COPD arms of a multicenter outcomes study. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 1998;38586- 597
PubMed
Weinberger  MMurray  MDMarrero  DG  et al.  Effectiveness of pharmacist care for patients with reactive airways disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;2881594- 1602
PubMed
van der Palen  JKlein  JJKerkhoff  AHvan Herwaarden  CLSeydel  ER Evaluation of the long-term effectiveness of three instruction modes for inhaling medicines. Patient Educ Couns 1997;32 ((suppl)) S87- S95
PubMed
Brough  FKSchmidt  CDRasmussen  TBoyer  M Comparison of two teaching methods for self-care training for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Patient Couns Health Educ 1982;4111- 116
PubMed
Cockcroft  ABagnall  PHeslop  A  et al.  Controlled trial of respiratory health worker visiting patients with chronic respiratory disability. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1987;294225- 228
PubMed
Littlejohns  PBaveystock  CMParnell  HJones  PW Randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of a respiratory health worker in reducing impairment, disability, and handicap due to chronic airflow limitation. Thorax 1991;46559- 564
PubMed
Sassi-Dambron  DEEakin  EGRies  ALKaplan  RM Treatment of dyspnea in COPD: a controlled clinical trial of dyspnea management strategies. Chest 1995;107724- 729
PubMed
Watson  PBTown  GIHolbrook  NDwan  CToop  LJDrennan  CJ Evaluation of a self-management plan for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J 1997;101267- 1271
PubMed
Gallefoss  FBakke  PS How does patient education and self-management among asthmatics and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease affect medication? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;1602000- 2005
PubMed
Gallefoss  FBakke  PSRsgaard  PK Quality of life assessment after patient education in a randomized controlled study on asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;159812- 817
PubMed
Gallefoss  FBakke  PS Impact of patient education and self-management on morbidity in asthmatics and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respir Med 2000;94279- 287
PubMed
Gallefoss  F The effects of patient education in COPD in a 1-year follow-up randomised, controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 2004;52259- 266
PubMed
Behnke  MTaube  CKirsten  DLehnigk  BJorres  RAMagnussen  H Home-based exercise is capable of preserving hospital-based improvements in severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respir Med 2000;941184- 1191
PubMed
Emery  CFSchein  RLHauck  ERMacIntyre  NR Psychological and cognitive outcomes of a randomized trial of exercise among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Health Psychol 1998;17232- 240
PubMed
Hermiz  OComino  EMarks  GDaffurn  KWilson  SHarris  M Randomised controlled trial of home based care of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. BMJ 2002;325938
PubMed
Bourbeau  JJulien  MMaltais  F  et al.  Reduction of hospital utilization in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a disease-specific self-management intervention. Arch Intern Med 2003;163585- 591
PubMed
Monninkhof  Evan der Valk  Pvan der Palen  Jvan Herwaarden  CZielhuis  G Effects of a comprehensive self-management programme in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J 2003;22815- 820
PubMed
Hernandez  CCasas  AEscarrabill  J  et al.  Home hospitalisation of exacerbated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Eur Respir J 2003;2158- 67
PubMed
Farrero  EEscarrabill  JPrats  EMaderal  MManresa  F Impact of a hospital-based home-care program on the management of COPD patients receiving long-term oxygen therapy. Chest 2001;119364- 369
PubMed
Egan  EClavarino  ABurridge  LTeuwen  MWhite  E A randomized control trial of nursing-based case management for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Lippincotts Case Manag 2002;7170- 179
PubMed
Rea  HMcAuley  SStewart  ALamont  CRoseman  PDidsbury  P A chronic disease management programme can reduce days in hospital for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Intern Med J 2004;34608- 614
PubMed
Blake  RL  JrVandiver  TABraun  SBertuso  DDStraub  V A randomized controlled evaluation of a psychosocial intervention in adults with chronic lung disease. Fam Med 1990;22365- 370
PubMed
Tougaard  LKrone  TSorknaes  AEllegaard  H Economic benefits of teaching patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease about their illness: the PASTMA group. Lancet 1992;3391517- 1520
PubMed
Howland  JNelson  ECBarlow  PB  et al.  Chronic obstructive airway disease: impact of health education. Chest 1986;90233- 238
PubMed
Jans  MPSchellevis  FGLe Coq  EMBezemer  PDvan Eijk  JT Health outcomes of asthma and COPD patients: the evaluation of a project to implement guidelines in general practice. Int J Qual Health Care 2001;1317- 25
PubMed
Goransson  CKirkegaard  AFridlund  B Evaluation of a nurse-led group-based education programme for in-patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Vard i Norden. Nurs Sci Res Nordic Countries 2003;2333- 38
Neff  DFMadigan  ENarsavage  G APN-directed transitional home care model: achieving positive outcomes for patients with COPD. Home Healthc Nurse 2003;21543- 550
Poole  PJChase  BFrankel  ABlack  PN Case management may reduce length of hospital stay in patients with recurrent admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respirology 2001;637- 42
PubMed
Howard  JEDavies  JLRoghmann  KJ Respiratory teaching of patients: how effective is it? J Adv Nurs 1987;12207- 214
PubMed
Zimmerman  BWBrown  STBowman  JM A self-management program for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: relationship to dyspnea and self-efficacy. Rehabil Nurs 1996;21253- 257
PubMed
Steinel  JAMadigan  EA Resource utilization in home health chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management. Outcomes Manag 2003;723- 27
PubMed
Barnett  M A nurse-led community scheme for managing patients with COPD. Prof Nurse 2003;1993- 96
PubMed
Haggerty  MCStockdale-Woolley  RNair  S Respi-Care: an innovative home care program for the patient with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Chest 1991;100607- 612
PubMed
 COPD pathway cuts costs per case by $900. Hosp Case Manag 1997;5156- 158
PubMed
Shaugnessy  PWSchlenker  RECrisler  KS  et al.  Final Report: Measuring Outcomes of Home Health Center.  Denver, Colo Center for Health Policy Services Research1994;
Hopp  JWLee  JWHills  R Development and validation of a pulmonary rehabilitation knowledge test. J Cardiopulm Rehabil 1989;9273- 278
Harris  RPHelfand  MWoolf  SH  et al.  Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 2001;2021- 35
PubMed
Monninkhof  Evan der Valk  Pvan der Palen  Jvan Herwaarden  CPartridge  MRZielhuis  G Self-management education for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review. Thorax 2003;58394- 398
PubMed
Weingarten  SRHenning  JMBadamgarav  E  et al.  Interventions used in disease management programmes for patients with chronic illness—which ones work? meta-analysis of published reports. BMJ 2002;325925
PubMed
Taylor  SJCandy  BBryar  RM  et al.  Effectiveness of innovations in nurse led chronic disease management for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review of evidence. BMJ 2005;331485
PubMeddoi:10.1136/bmj.38512.664167.8F
Kunz  ROxman  AD The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1998;3171185- 1190
PubMed
Shojania  KGRanji  SRShaw  LK  et al.  Closing the quality gap: a critical analysis of quality improvement strategies. Vol 2: Diabetes mellitus care.  Rockville, Md Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality2004;Technical Review, No. 9; AHRQ publication 04-0051-2
Yohannes  AMBaldwin  RCConnolly  MJ Mood disorders in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Rev Clin Gerontol 2000;10193- 202
Kim  HFKunik  MEMolinari  VA  et al.  Functional impairment in COPD patients: the impact of anxiety and depression. Psychosomatics 2000;41465- 471
PubMed
Kunik  MERoundy  KVeazey  C  et al.  Surprisingly high prevalence of anxiety and depression in chronic breathing disorders. Chest 2005;1271205- 1211
PubMed

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Study flow diagram. COPD indicates chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Interventions Categorized Into the Components of the Chronic Care Model
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Characteristics of Studies Included in a Systematic Review of Components of the Chronic Care Model in Patients With COPD
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Individual Components of the Chronic Illness Care Model for Each Study*
Table Graphic Jump LocationeTable 1. Quality of Included Randomized, Controlled Studies*
Table Graphic Jump LocationeTable 2. Intervention Differences in Change in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire Scores Among RCTs*
Table Graphic Jump LocationeTable 3. Intervention Differences in Changes in Standardized Anxiety and Depression Measures
Table Graphic Jump LocationeTable 4. Intervention Differences in Mean Change in FEV1 Values*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Relative Risk of Mortality Among Intervention Patients Relative to Control Patients*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Relative Risk of Emergency Department/Unscheduled Visits for Intervention Patients Relative to Control Patients*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 6. Relative Risk of Hospitalization for Intervention Patients Relative to Control Patients*

References

Mannino  DMHoma  DMAkinbami  LJFord  ESRedd  SC Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease surveillance: United States, 1971-2000. MMWR Surveill Summ 2002;511- 16
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Morbidity and mortality: 2004 chart book on cardiovascular, lung, and blood diseases. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/04a_chtbk.pdf. Accessed December 22, 2005
Tinkelman  DCorsello  PMcClure  DYin  M One-year outcomes from a disease management program for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2003;1149- 59
Sin  DDMcAlister  FAMan  SFAnthonisen  NR Contemporary management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: scientific review. JAMA 2003;2902301- 2312
PubMed
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Improving chronic illness care. http://www.improvingchroniccare.org. Accessed November 20, 2005
 Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.  Washington, DC National Academy Press2001;
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Crossing the quality chasm: the IOM health care quality initiative. http://www.iom.edu. Accessed October 20, 2005
Wagner  EHAustin  BTVon Korff  M Improving outcomes in chronic illness. Manag Care Q 1996;412- 25
PubMed
Wagner  EH Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Eff Clin Pract 1998;12- 4
PubMed
Wagner  EHDavis  CSchaefer  JVon Korff  MAustin  B A survey of leading chronic disease management programs: are they consistent with the literature? Manag Care Q 1999;756- 66
PubMed
Bodenheimer  TWagner  EHGrumbach  K Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness: the chronic care model, part 2. JAMA 2002;2881909- 1914
PubMed
Tsai  ACMorton  SCMangione  CMKeeler  EB A meta-analysis of interventions to improve care for chronic illnesses. Am J Manag Care 2005;11478- 488
PubMed
 StataCorp 2003. Stata statistical software: release 8.0.  College Station, Tex StataCorp2003;
Higgins  JPThompson  SG Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;211539- 1558
PubMed
Cochran  WG The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954;10101- 129
DerSimonian  RLaird  N Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7177- 188
PubMed
Gourley  DRGourley  GASolomon  DK  et al.  Development, implementation, and evaluation of a multicenter pharmaceutical care outcomes study. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 1998;38567- 573
PubMed
Solomon  DKPortner  TSBass  GE  et al.  Clinical and economic outcomes in the hypertension and COPD arms of a multicenter outcomes study. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 1998;38574- 585
PubMed
Gourley  GAPortner  TSGourley  DR  et al.  Humanistic outcomes in the hypertension and COPD arms of a multicenter outcomes study. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 1998;38586- 597
PubMed
Weinberger  MMurray  MDMarrero  DG  et al.  Effectiveness of pharmacist care for patients with reactive airways disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;2881594- 1602
PubMed
van der Palen  JKlein  JJKerkhoff  AHvan Herwaarden  CLSeydel  ER Evaluation of the long-term effectiveness of three instruction modes for inhaling medicines. Patient Educ Couns 1997;32 ((suppl)) S87- S95
PubMed
Brough  FKSchmidt  CDRasmussen  TBoyer  M Comparison of two teaching methods for self-care training for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Patient Couns Health Educ 1982;4111- 116
PubMed
Cockcroft  ABagnall  PHeslop  A  et al.  Controlled trial of respiratory health worker visiting patients with chronic respiratory disability. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1987;294225- 228
PubMed
Littlejohns  PBaveystock  CMParnell  HJones  PW Randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of a respiratory health worker in reducing impairment, disability, and handicap due to chronic airflow limitation. Thorax 1991;46559- 564
PubMed
Sassi-Dambron  DEEakin  EGRies  ALKaplan  RM Treatment of dyspnea in COPD: a controlled clinical trial of dyspnea management strategies. Chest 1995;107724- 729
PubMed
Watson  PBTown  GIHolbrook  NDwan  CToop  LJDrennan  CJ Evaluation of a self-management plan for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J 1997;101267- 1271
PubMed
Gallefoss  FBakke  PS How does patient education and self-management among asthmatics and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease affect medication? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;1602000- 2005
PubMed
Gallefoss  FBakke  PSRsgaard  PK Quality of life assessment after patient education in a randomized controlled study on asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;159812- 817
PubMed
Gallefoss  FBakke  PS Impact of patient education and self-management on morbidity in asthmatics and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respir Med 2000;94279- 287
PubMed
Gallefoss  F The effects of patient education in COPD in a 1-year follow-up randomised, controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 2004;52259- 266
PubMed
Behnke  MTaube  CKirsten  DLehnigk  BJorres  RAMagnussen  H Home-based exercise is capable of preserving hospital-based improvements in severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respir Med 2000;941184- 1191
PubMed
Emery  CFSchein  RLHauck  ERMacIntyre  NR Psychological and cognitive outcomes of a randomized trial of exercise among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Health Psychol 1998;17232- 240
PubMed
Hermiz  OComino  EMarks  GDaffurn  KWilson  SHarris  M Randomised controlled trial of home based care of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. BMJ 2002;325938
PubMed
Bourbeau  JJulien  MMaltais  F  et al.  Reduction of hospital utilization in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a disease-specific self-management intervention. Arch Intern Med 2003;163585- 591
PubMed
Monninkhof  Evan der Valk  Pvan der Palen  Jvan Herwaarden  CZielhuis  G Effects of a comprehensive self-management programme in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J 2003;22815- 820
PubMed
Hernandez  CCasas  AEscarrabill  J  et al.  Home hospitalisation of exacerbated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Eur Respir J 2003;2158- 67
PubMed
Farrero  EEscarrabill  JPrats  EMaderal  MManresa  F Impact of a hospital-based home-care program on the management of COPD patients receiving long-term oxygen therapy. Chest 2001;119364- 369
PubMed
Egan  EClavarino  ABurridge  LTeuwen  MWhite  E A randomized control trial of nursing-based case management for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Lippincotts Case Manag 2002;7170- 179
PubMed
Rea  HMcAuley  SStewart  ALamont  CRoseman  PDidsbury  P A chronic disease management programme can reduce days in hospital for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Intern Med J 2004;34608- 614
PubMed
Blake  RL  JrVandiver  TABraun  SBertuso  DDStraub  V A randomized controlled evaluation of a psychosocial intervention in adults with chronic lung disease. Fam Med 1990;22365- 370
PubMed
Tougaard  LKrone  TSorknaes  AEllegaard  H Economic benefits of teaching patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease about their illness: the PASTMA group. Lancet 1992;3391517- 1520
PubMed
Howland  JNelson  ECBarlow  PB  et al.  Chronic obstructive airway disease: impact of health education. Chest 1986;90233- 238
PubMed
Jans  MPSchellevis  FGLe Coq  EMBezemer  PDvan Eijk  JT Health outcomes of asthma and COPD patients: the evaluation of a project to implement guidelines in general practice. Int J Qual Health Care 2001;1317- 25
PubMed
Goransson  CKirkegaard  AFridlund  B Evaluation of a nurse-led group-based education programme for in-patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Vard i Norden. Nurs Sci Res Nordic Countries 2003;2333- 38
Neff  DFMadigan  ENarsavage  G APN-directed transitional home care model: achieving positive outcomes for patients with COPD. Home Healthc Nurse 2003;21543- 550
Poole  PJChase  BFrankel  ABlack  PN Case management may reduce length of hospital stay in patients with recurrent admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respirology 2001;637- 42
PubMed
Howard  JEDavies  JLRoghmann  KJ Respiratory teaching of patients: how effective is it? J Adv Nurs 1987;12207- 214
PubMed
Zimmerman  BWBrown  STBowman  JM A self-management program for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: relationship to dyspnea and self-efficacy. Rehabil Nurs 1996;21253- 257
PubMed
Steinel  JAMadigan  EA Resource utilization in home health chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management. Outcomes Manag 2003;723- 27
PubMed
Barnett  M A nurse-led community scheme for managing patients with COPD. Prof Nurse 2003;1993- 96
PubMed
Haggerty  MCStockdale-Woolley  RNair  S Respi-Care: an innovative home care program for the patient with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Chest 1991;100607- 612
PubMed
 COPD pathway cuts costs per case by $900. Hosp Case Manag 1997;5156- 158
PubMed
Shaugnessy  PWSchlenker  RECrisler  KS  et al.  Final Report: Measuring Outcomes of Home Health Center.  Denver, Colo Center for Health Policy Services Research1994;
Hopp  JWLee  JWHills  R Development and validation of a pulmonary rehabilitation knowledge test. J Cardiopulm Rehabil 1989;9273- 278
Harris  RPHelfand  MWoolf  SH  et al.  Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 2001;2021- 35
PubMed
Monninkhof  Evan der Valk  Pvan der Palen  Jvan Herwaarden  CPartridge  MRZielhuis  G Self-management education for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review. Thorax 2003;58394- 398
PubMed
Weingarten  SRHenning  JMBadamgarav  E  et al.  Interventions used in disease management programmes for patients with chronic illness—which ones work? meta-analysis of published reports. BMJ 2002;325925
PubMed
Taylor  SJCandy  BBryar  RM  et al.  Effectiveness of innovations in nurse led chronic disease management for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review of evidence. BMJ 2005;331485
PubMeddoi:10.1136/bmj.38512.664167.8F
Kunz  ROxman  AD The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1998;3171185- 1190
PubMed
Shojania  KGRanji  SRShaw  LK  et al.  Closing the quality gap: a critical analysis of quality improvement strategies. Vol 2: Diabetes mellitus care.  Rockville, Md Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality2004;Technical Review, No. 9; AHRQ publication 04-0051-2
Yohannes  AMBaldwin  RCConnolly  MJ Mood disorders in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Rev Clin Gerontol 2000;10193- 202
Kim  HFKunik  MEMolinari  VA  et al.  Functional impairment in COPD patients: the impact of anxiety and depression. Psychosomatics 2000;41465- 471
PubMed
Kunik  MERoundy  KVeazey  C  et al.  Surprisingly high prevalence of anxiety and depression in chronic breathing disorders. Chest 2005;1271205- 1211
PubMed

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 114

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles