Modern Innovative Solutions to Improve Outcomes in Asthma, Breathlessness, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (MISSION ABC): Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Study

BACKGROUND: A high proportion of the costs for respiratory diseases are generated by a relatively small group of patients with severe disease (recognized or unrecognized) or complex problems that include multimorbidity, at-risk behaviors, and socioeconomic disadvantage. These patients often struggle to engage with the structured, proactive, care approaches for chronic disease management advocated for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), resulting in repeated emergency use of both primary and secondary health care. An integrated approach for the management of complex patients, incorporating both specialist and primary care teams’ expertise, may be effective in improving outcomes for such high-risk patients. However, the evidence is mixed, and there is a need for evaluation of models of integrated care in routine “real-world” clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: This mixed-methods protocol examines the implementation of a novel integrated care model for patients with airways disease and undifferentiated breathlessness by using both quantitative and qualitative evaluation of processes, patient and health care professional experiences, and clinical outcomes throughout the clinic cycles. It aims to establish whether Modern Innovative Solutions to Improve Outcomes in Asthma, Breathlessness, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (MISSION ABC), including innovative diagnostic and self-management tools, can deliver improvements in health service use and clinical outcomes for the different patient groups (asthma, breathlessness, and COPD) and compares the 12-month period prior to the first patient visit and the 6-month period following the last visit. METHODS: A combination of study designs is required to evaluate all aspects of the service: participatory action research approach, involving real-time evaluation at each clinic to inform subsequent clinics; before-and-after study for patient outcomes before and after clinic attendance; and qualitative methods (interviews and focus groups). RESULTS: The results will be compiled and published in April 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the clinic cycles will include consideration of qualitative data from patients, carers, and health care professionals in addition to quantitative outcomes for service implementation and patient factors. The long-term impact of the service will be evaluated using clinical and health service outcomes. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/9228