Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
P35 The impact of pulmonary rehabilitation services accreditation scheme on key performance indicators
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
P35 The impact of pulmonary rehabilitation services accreditation scheme on key performance indicators
Do you wish to request the book?
P35 The impact of pulmonary rehabilitation services accreditation scheme on key performance indicators
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
P35 The impact of pulmonary rehabilitation services accreditation scheme on key performance indicators
2025
Overview
IntroductionThe Pulmonary Rehabilitation Services Accreditation Scheme (PRSAS), hosted by the Royal College of Physicians uses a framework set out by the British Standard Institution’s specification for accreditation of clinical services, to measure PR services in line with British Thoracic Society national guidance. The aim of this study is to determine the impact of accreditation on key performance indicators (KPI).MethodsThe National Respiratory Audit Programme 2022–2023 Breathing Well report data was used. This provides service level data alongside KPI, including time to receipt of PR, completion of a discharge assessment, written discharge plan, and performing a practice 6 minute or Incremental Shuttle Walking Test (6MWT/ISWT). Services were grouped by accreditation status as of January 2025. Data was analysed using a one-way ANOVA. For accredited services, comparisons of KPI from the 2019 PR clinical audit report and 2022–2023 Breathing Well report were made using a paired t-test.Results176 services were included in the analysis (24(13%) accredited, 18(10%) undergoing assessment, 34(18%) not registered and 100(54%) registered only). There were statistically significant differences in number of patients enrolled per service in favour of those accredited (mean[SD] 143[110] compared to those not registered (71[83]) and registered only services (85[70]), p<0.01. The mean[SD] days from assessment to commencing PR in stable COPD was 108[82] accredited services, 126[62] undergoing assessment, 130[109] registered only and 164[118] not registered, however this was not statistically significant. There was no statistical difference for other KPI (table 1).There was a statistically significant improvement in percentage of people enrolled from the 2019 to 2022/2023 audit in accredited services with a mean[SD] improvement of 16[31]%, p=0.03. Percentage of patients completing a practice 6MWT changed from 60[41] to 86[12] (n=4) and 87[26] to 80[32] in the ISWT (n=12), though this was not statistically significant.Abstract P35 Table 1The mean[SD] percentage of patients achieving the key performance indicators. N= number of servicesConclusionAccredited services enrol a larger number of patients into PR. There is signal in improved waiting times, written discharge plans and practice 6MWT in accredited services however this did not reach statistical significance.
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group LTD
Subject
