Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31258918›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open respiratory research2019

Evaluation of 'care bundles' for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a multisite study in the UK.

Katherine Morton, Stephanie MacNeill, Emily Sanderson, Padraig Dixon, Anna King, Sue Jenkins, Chris Metcalfe, Ali Shaw, Melanie Chalder, Jonathan Benger and 3 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open respiratory research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Implementing acute exacerbations of COPD care bundles: evidence, effectiveness and future directions.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Katherine MortonPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences, Bristol, UK.
Stephanie MacNeillBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Emily SandersonBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Padraig DixonBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Anna KingBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sue JenkinsBristol, UK.
Chris MetcalfeBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ali ShawBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Melanie ChalderBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jonathan BengerFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6131-0916
William HollingworthBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
James CalvertRespiratory Medicine, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Sarah PurdyBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3445-986X

Funding

Department of Health 12/130/53
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) accounts for 10% of emergency hospital admissions in the UK annually. Nearly 33% of patients are readmitted within 28 days of discharge. We evaluated the effectiveness of implementing standardised packages of care called 'care bundles' on COPD readmission, emergency department (ED) attendance, mortality, costs and process of care. Methods: This is a mixed-methods, controlled before-and-after study with nested case studies. 31 acute hospitals in England and Wales which introduced COPD care bundles (implementation sites) or provided usual care (comparator sites) were recruited and provided monthly aggregate data. 14 sites provided additional individual patient data. Participants were adults admitted with an acute exacerbation of COPD. Results: There was no evidence that care bundles reduced 28-day COPD readmission rates: OR=1.02 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.26). However, the rate of ED attendance was reduced in implementation sites over and above that in comparator sites (implementation: IRR=0.63 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.71); comparator: IRR=1.12 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.24); group-time interaction p<0.001). At implementation sites, delivery of all bundle elements was higher but was only achieved in 2.2% (admissions bundle) and 7.6% (discharge bundle) of cases. There was no evidence of cost-effectiveness. Staff viewed bundles positively, believing they help standardise practice and facilitate communication between clinicians. However, they lacked skills in change management, leading to inconsistent implementation. Discussion: COPD care bundles were not effectively implemented in this study. They were associated with a reduced number of subsequent ED attendances, but not with change in readmissions, mortality or reduced costs. This is unsurprising given the low level of bundle uptake in implementation sites, and it remains to be determined if COPD care bundles affect patient care and outcomes when they are effectively implemented. Trial registration number: ISRCTN13022442.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAgedAged, 80 and overDisease ProgressionEmergency Service, HospitalEnglandFemaleHealth Care CostsHealth Plan ImplementationHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPatient Care BundlesPatient DischargePatient Readmissioncopd exacerbations

Identifiers

PMID31258918
PMCPMC6561386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.