Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Implementation of a computer-guided consultation in the assessment of suspected obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome

Biswajit Chakrabarti, Nadia Lewis-Burke, Mike Pearson, Sonya Craig, Lisa Davies, Kim Sheridan, Philip England, Eddie McKnight, Robert Angus
ERJ Open Research 2020 6: 00362-2019; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00362-2019
Biswajit Chakrabarti
1Aintree Chest Centre, University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Biswajit Chakrabarti
  • For correspondence: biz@doctors.org.uk
Nadia Lewis-Burke
1Aintree Chest Centre, University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mike Pearson
1Aintree Chest Centre, University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool, UK
2LungHealth Ltd, Swaffham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sonya Craig
1Aintree Chest Centre, University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lisa Davies
1Aintree Chest Centre, University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool, UK
2LungHealth Ltd, Swaffham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kim Sheridan
3National Services for Health Improvement, Swaffham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philip England
3National Services for Health Improvement, Swaffham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eddie McKnight
2LungHealth Ltd, Swaffham, UK
3National Services for Health Improvement, Swaffham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Angus
1Aintree Chest Centre, University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool, UK
2LungHealth Ltd, Swaffham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background We describe implementation of a clinical decision support system, a computer-guided consultation (CGC), in the assessment of subjects referred with suspected obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS).

Methods Two cohorts of patients were assessed. The first 100 cases had data collected with the CGC by a specialist sleep physician (stage1). A further 100 cases were assessed by a nonspecialist using the CGC (stage 2). For each case, the diagnosis suggested by the CGC was compared with the final diagnosis made by a second specialist sleep physician blinded to the CGC diagnosis.

Results Stage 1: of 100 people evaluated, a final diagnosis of OSAS was made by both the sleep specialist and CGC in 88% of cases. In 7 of the remaining 12 cases, both agreed there was “No evidence of OSAS”; in 5 cases the CGC did not reach a final diagnosis instead prompting specialist referral. Stage 2: 100 people were evaluated; 95% were evaluable. Both CGC and the sleep specialist made a diagnosis of OSAS in 83 cases (87%), in 5 cases both agreed there was no OSAS, whereas in 7 cases the CGC prompted a specialist review due to unexplained symptoms. The CGC was concordant with the final diagnosis in 95% and 93% of cases in the two cohorts, respectively and where there was doubt, prompted for clinical review. No OSAS cases were overlooked by the CGC.

Conclusion An intelligent CGC program creates opportunities in sleep medicine management pathways to safely yet effectively utilise nonspecialists working under specialist supervision.

Abstract

A clinical decision support system may be used safely to assess subjects with suspected obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome when used by specialists and nonspecialists alike https://bit.ly/2AFPD0r

Introduction

Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a common condition, estimated to occur in 14% of men and 5% of women, characterised by the cessation of breathing due to repetitive narrowing of the upper airway during sleep with the resulting fragmentation of sleep leading to excessive daytime sleepiness [1, 2]. Obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS), characterised by the presence of OSA along with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS), has been associated with a range of cardiovascular morbidities including hypertension, coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation [3–5]. OSAS has been associated with an increased risk of road traffic accidents, is linked to greater absenteeism from work, excess lost workdays, disability claims, workplace-related accidents and decreased productivity [6–16]. In those patients diagnosed with OSAS, treatment with continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) leads to improvement in daytime sleepiness, quality of life [17] and concentration translating into a reduction in motor vehicle accidents as well as benefiting work performance [18–20].

The increasing prevalence of OSA in society threatens to overwhelm healthcare systems already struggling to balance capacity, demand and cost. The use of technology in healthcare such as a clinical decision support system (CDSS) may help to address these challenges. As clinical practice moves to paperless formats, several opportunities emerge with one being the implementation of CDSSs as components or as tools available alongside an electronic case sheet. Furthermore, there is the possibility of creating a comprehensive guided consultation, as reported here, which supports the entire diagnostic and management process. We have developed and reported that such a guided consultation works for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care for both nurses and doctors [21]. The computer-guided consultation (CGC) is a comprehensive electronic consultation with multiple clinical decision support algorithms, which together prompt the clinician through the whole management of the condition, in this case OSA. It could be regarded as an evolved CDSS as it forms a full clinical record, supports the entire assessment process with multiple algorithms aiming to reach a correct diagnosis based on the history, prompted and interpreted investigations and then to suggest a management plan. We describe its use suspected OSA and assess whether it is effective and safe when used in diagnosing patients referred to a specialist sleep service with suspected OSAS.

Methods

At University Hospital Aintree, a regional tertiary sleep medicine centre, we implemented a CGC in the clinical pathway for the assessment of subjects referred by their general practitioner with suspected OSAS as part of a service redesign. The implementation was approved by our sleep service clinical lead, sleep service business manager and hospital information technology lead. The diagnostic accuracy of the CGC is comparable with what was current standard practice (i.e. a specialist physician assessment) in a phased two-stage implementation process in the sleep service, firstly when the CGC is used by a physician and secondly, when used by a nonclinician with minimal background training in the field of sleep medicine.

The computer-guided consultation

The CGC is hosted on a local UK National Health Service (NHS) server and is password protected enabling Caldicott principles and General Data Protection Regulations to be satisfied [22]. This ensures that patient data gathered by the CGC is duly and lawfully protected according to principles set in a national framework and that these data are only used when it is appropriate to do so, with anonymity being preserved. The CGC in addition, enables all patients to have a standardised electronic record of their condition, which can be used for future care and can be customised to local guidance priorities, while not excluding individual management. All patients gave individual consent to the use of and holding of their data.

The CGC software is structured and guides the operator and the patient through a number of sections:

  • History: the history is tailored to sleep medicine and incorporates embedded algorithms taking into account factors that may influence the presentation of subjects with suspected OSA such as sleep hygiene, occupation and the influence of comorbidity, particularly those conditions pertinent to sleep-disordered breathing. The software highlights those conditions that may increase the likelihood of underlying OSA in an individual, such as atrial fibrillation and refractory hypertension [3, 4]. The software not only integrates the key symptoms of OSAS, including more rare clinical presentations of OSAS but also incorporates into the algorithms those symptoms that may be indicative of other common sleep disorders, such as restless legs syndrome, shift-work syndrome and disorders of circadian rhythm. In addition, the detection of sleep hygiene-related issues is specifically included in the CGC algorithms and this includes management strategies of poor sleep hygiene and insomnia should this be detected. Similarly, the software also takes into account the presence of any nasal symptoms contributing to the subject's clinical presentation.

  • Clinical examination: includes description of key upper airway anatomy relevant to the OSA patient (such as craniofacial abnormalities and tonsillar enlargement), measurement of blood pressure (BP) and calculation of body mass index (BMI) and Epworth sleepiness score (ESS) [23]

  • Sleep study: this section enables the user to enter key measures from the polysomnogram such as apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI), oxygen desaturation index (ODI), oxygen saturation and periodic limb movement index. The software interprets the results of the sleep study according to American Academy of Sleep Medicine criteria [24].

The software algorithms include programmed safety alerts throughout each section so that conditions mimicking the presentation of OSAS, such as hypoventilation, central sleep apnoea and neuromuscular disease will be highlighted. There are prompts for the user to act on the alerts generated (e.g. presence of driving-related drowsiness, significant hypoxia, critical hypertension, hypoventilation).

Following completion of the history and examination sections, the CGC processes these findings using an algorithmic approach and offers the user a pre-investigation diagnosis and suggests appropriate investigation (e.g. whether the findings merit prompting the operator to proceed to a sleep study based on this pre-investigation diagnosis). After the patient has had a sleep study, the operator is invited to enter the key results of the study and the CGC algorithms interpret those results integrating with the history and examination component to make a suggested final diagnosis. As an example, the software recognises the presence of symptoms and polysomnography findings that may point to coexisting or alternative diagnoses such as restless legs syndrome/periodic limb movement syndrome and also incorporates this into the patient report thus alerting the clinician.

The summary generated from the consultation becomes a standardised electronic record and, prompts clinicians towards interventions based on UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines [25]. While providing these prompts the software itself does not make decisions, rather it suggests appropriate investigative or therapeutic interventions and leaves the user open to make the final choice as appropriate. At the end of the consultation a summary and management plan are created, which can be added to the patient records, printed and disseminated or e-mailed.

Stage 1: validation of the guided consultation when used by a by a sleep specialist (figure 1)

Consecutive subjects referred into the regional sleep service with suspected OSAS had a sleep study (ApneaLinkTM; Resmed) following receipt of the referral and before the outpatient appointment with the sleep specialist physician. At the outpatient visit, the sleep specialist physician, (BC) used the CGC to collect the history and clinical examination components only, but without access to either the results of the sleep study or any assessments/diagnoses made by the CGC. Following completion of the CGC data collection, the sleep specialist closed the CGC, reviewed the results of the sleep study and completed the remainder of the consultation without using the CGC.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Implementation of guided consultation when used by a specialist physician (Stage 1).

Separately, following this consultation, an independent researcher (Consultant Physician, RA), blind to the diagnosis reached by the sleep specialist in the outpatient clinic, entered the sleep study results into the CGC thus enabling the CGC to integrate the data collected from the history, examination and sleep study and to thus arrive at a final diagnosis. The final diagnosis reached by the CGC was reviewed by this independent researcher (RA) and compared to the final diagnosis reached in the outpatient clinic by the sleep specialist (BC) in the service.

Stage 2: validation of the guided consultation when used by a non-specialist (figure 2)

A second cohort of subjects referred consecutively to the regional sleep service with suspected OSAS were evaluated using the CGC by a nonmedical graduate (NLB) who was also a trained researcher with no previous sleep medicine training. The evaluation was done immediately following receipt of the referral and followed within 24 h by a sleep study (ApneaLinkTM; Resmed). The nonmedical graduate collected both history and examination components using the CGC, and subsequently inputted the results of the sleep study into the CGC after this was performed, which then formulated a suggested final diagnosis and suggested a management plan. Following this process, each patient was reviewed in the outpatient clinic by a sleep specialist physician blinded to the interpretations made by the CGC. For each case, the final diagnosis reached by the CGC when used by the nonmedical graduate was compared to the diagnosis arrived at by the sleep specialist physician.

FIGURE 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2

Implementation of guided consultation when used by a nonspecialist (Stage 2).

In our sleep service, all sleep studies are manually inspected by a senior sleep physiologist. Apnoeas and hypopnoeas were scored manually according to American Academy of Sleep Medicine criteria [24]. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 26.0. Data are presented as mean±sd unless otherwise stated. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value <0.05. We used the independent sample t-test to identify significant differences in continuous variables and the Chi-squared test for categorical variables. During each stage of this evaluation, the strength of agreement between the final diagnosis reached by the CGC and that reached by the sleep specialist was calculated using the κ statistic according to the system proposed by Landis and Koch [26] (value of 0–0.2: slight agreement; 0.21–0.40: fair agreement; 0.41–0.6: moderate agreement; 0.61–0.80: substantial agreement and 0.81–1: almost perfect agreement).

Formal ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and the Health Research Authority (reference 19/HRA/6433)

Results

The key demographics of the study populations described in the two-step implementation process are outlined in table 1. No statistically significant differences were observed in baseline variables between the two cohorts (stage 1 and stage 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Study population demographics

Stage 1: comparison of guided consultation when used by a by physician

Overall, 100 subjects referred with suspected OSA/OSAS had data collected by a physician using the CGC, but without access to the CGC conclusions. No consultation took longer than 15 min using the CGC. The CGC correctly identified additional pathology in 17 subjects (8 with background hypertension, 7 with type 2 diabetes and 2 with ischaemic heart disease). Comparing the physician-collected CGC process with that of the sleep specialist's own diagnosis, both reached a final diagnosis of OSAS in 88 (88%) of cases (61% male, mean age 52±12 years; BMI 37±10 kg·m-2; ESS 10±6; AHI 30±26) and in 7 cases both concurred that there was no evidence of OSAS. In the remaining five cases, the sleep specialist felt that a diagnosis of OSAS did not explain the patient's presentation (transient nocturnal cough, nasal obstruction, tiredness due to sleep hygiene issues, periodic limb movement syndrome and unexplained tiredness), whereas the CGC final diagnosis was of possible OSAS but in all these 5 cases prompted a specialist referral to investigate the unexplained symptoms detected by the algorithms (table 2). Thus, in this cohort, the final diagnosis made by the CGC was concordant with that of the sleep specialist in 95% of cases and made a safe recommendation in the remainder. The κ value measuring agreement between the CGC and the sleep specialist for this stage was 0.59 (p<0.05).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Outcomes of the consultation when performed by the sleep specialist (n=100 cases)

Stage 2: comparison of the guided consultation used by a nonspecialist with a traditional specialist consultation

Overall, 100 subjects were evaluated with the CGC by the nonmedical graduate. The CGC identified that 35 subjects had background disorders (20 with hypertension, 6 with maturity-onset diabetes, 9 with chronic pain syndrome treated with analgesics, including opiates and gabapentin). Of these 100 subjects, 5 underwent the sleep study but did not attend their subsequent sleep specialist appointment, leaving 95 subjects to be evaluated (see table 3). No consultation took longer than 15 min using the CGC. Both the sleep specialist and the CGC made a firm diagnosis of OSAS in 83 of 95 subjects (87% (mean age 52±12 years; ESS 11±5; BMI 37±9  kg·m-2; AHI 26±22) of the 95) and agreed that 5 cases had no evidence of OSAS. Of these, one patient was diagnosed with periodic limb movement disorder but still discharged due to the absence of any alarming symptoms. In the final seven cases (four men, mean age 41±11 years; ESS 9±4; BMI 26±4  kg·m-2; AHI 3±1), the sleep specialist felt that there was no evidence of OSAS and discharged the patients, whereas the CGC algorithms prompted a specialist review to investigate unexplained symptoms. Thus overall, the final diagnosis made by the CGC was concordant with the sleep specialist in 93% (88 of 95) of cases (table 3) and in the remainder where there was some uncertainty, the CGC prompted for a specialist review. The κ value measuring agreement between the CGC and the sleep specialist for this stage was 0.56 (p<0.05).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Outcomes of the consultation when performed by the nonspecialist (n=95 cases)

Discussion

There has recently been considerable interest in applying technologies such as CDSSs in order to improve efficiency of existing patient pathways whilst retaining the high quality of standardised guideline-delivered practice [27]. This is particularly applicable in the area of sleep medicine, where it is estimated 85% of OSAS cases in the UK remain undiagnosed [28]. Furthermore, health economic studies show that accurate diagnosis of sleep apnoea carries significant benefit, with annual NHS savings of £28 million if all the cases of moderate and severe OSA were diagnosed and managed [28]. Our data demonstrate that within a busy clinical sleep medicine service, it is possible for nonspecialists working under the clinical oversight of a sleep specialist physician to assess new referrals with suspected OSAS using a CGC quickly (each consultation lasting15 min duration or less) with the CGC maintaining a high level of diagnostic accuracy with a concordance of 93% when compared to a sleep specialist physician.

A potential concern of modifying any clinical pathway by replacing routine specialist physician assessment with nonspecialist physicians assessing patients using computer software lies in the issue of patient safety particularly where patients may present with atypical symptoms. A sleep service will commonly encounter disorders whose symptoms may masquerade as OSAS (e.g. disorders of hypoventilation, narcolepsy and central sleep apnoea) [29]. A misdiagnosis or delay in diagnosis of these conditions may result in significant patient harm. The CGC used in this study is designed to capture such atypical symptoms and alert the operator that there are unexplained features. Furthermore, the CGC requires that the operator cannot override such an alert and has to enter an action. It has been reported that if clinical staff are able to override such alerts, then outcomes suffer [30]. In our analysis, when the CGC was used by the nonspecialist staff member, there were seven cases where the CGC was not concordant with the specialist opinion but in each case, the CGC made the safe conclusion to refer for a specialist review and the software did not miss any cases of OSAS hence underpinning it's safety in routine clinical practice. However, it must also be stressed that in our clinical pathway, all consultations performed using the CGC received clinical oversight by a sleep specialist physician which also serves as an important safety net in routine practice.

The use of a CDSS in the setting of OSAS has been described previously, yet these studies have been largely questionnaire-based [31–33]. A US study of 91 subjects with a background of ischaemic heart disease (of whom 75% had OSA) found that the use of an electronic handheld CDSS carried a sensitivity of 98.5% and a specificity of 86.9%. This was compared to a commonly used screening tool, the Berlin questionnaire, which reported a sensitivity and sensitivity of 87% and 39% respectively [32]. However, none of these papers describe the integration of sleep study data into the functioning of the CDSS in terms of what was reported though this functionality had been available in one [31]. These previous studies also excluded a number of key comorbidities, such as neurological disease and opiate use, which contrasts to our system where no patients were excluded and the conclusions of the analysis of any sleep study is integrated with the history and clinical examination thus providing a more global assessment. In contrast, our study, evaluated consecutive, unselected referrals for suspected OSAS using the CGC reflecting a “real world” scenario.

Despite this, our analysis has certain limitations. Our referral population represent those patients typically referred into our service with a suspicion of OSAS and thus consisted of a cohort who had a high pre-test probability of OSAS. Such a population may carry a different pre-test probability of OSAS in comparison to a less symptomatic population referred for screening purposes (e.g. to detect sleep-disordered breathing in occupational health settings, such as in professional drivers). However, the software does screen for comorbidities which increase the likelihood of underlying OSA being present in an individual, thus prompting the user to have a lower threshold to undertake sleep studies in these situations. Furthermore, the CGC interprets the sleep study data so such patients may then be diagnosed by the software after the sleep study has been undertaken. Critics may cite the κ scores described in our analysis as showing only a modest level of agreement between the CGC and the sleep specialist. However, an explanation for this may lie in the high pre-test probability of the sample having OSA coupled with the relatively small sample size in question and clearly future studies involving the use of the software require larger numbers for validation as opposed to our current analysis aiming for proof of principle. However, from a patient safety perspective, it should also be stressed that the CGC did not recommend discharging any patient in either cohort that had unexplained symptoms in the absence of a diagnosis of OSAS but instead recommended further investigation in each case. Our study not involve performing a clinical examination in the subjects who were assessed by the nonspecialist although this features as a component of the CGC hence abnormal anatomical findings that may be indicative of underlying OSAS such as significant tonsillar enlargement and the presence of craniofacial abnormalities such as retrognathia were not accounted for. However, examination of the upper airway could be carried out by a trained physiologist or a physician following the diagnosis of OSAS and at the time of initiating CPAP and any anatomical concerns referred for specialist review. We did not perform a formal health economic impact subsequent to implementation of the CGC and such analysis is vital in any healthcare setting. However, the principle of transferring 90% of the throughput to nonspecialist physicians or primary care physicians working under the oversight of specialist physicians and doing so safely using a CGC is almost certainly a cost-effective change, although this warrants further study.

If the data here are accepted and further studies validate the safety and diagnostic accuracy of such systems, then the impact on a sleep service could be both positive and substantial. Given the significant waiting lists to access sleep services both in the UK and beyond coupled with a shortage of medical specialists, then an option to have over 90% of suspected OSAS cases assessed by nonspecialist physicians using a CGC with sleep specialists providing clinical oversight and supervision has immediate practical and economic advantages. While this happens in a measure already with specialist nurses and respiratory sleep physiologists; systems such as this may act as a robust vehicle to extend this. This could enable any healthcare system using a CGC to assess sleep and breathing disorders and correctly prescribe CPAP support or to reassure that it is not required or to indicate when onwards specialist review is needed when diagnostic uncertainty exists. Thus, implementation of technological solutions such as the CGC described here within sleep services would result in scarce sleep specialist physician time being directed to target cases where there is diagnostic uncertainty or complexity, those OSAS cases with a suboptimal response to first-line therapy and cases where the CGC had flagged up key alerts or atypical symptoms. Similarly, healthcare commissioners can be assured that the standardised assessment was comprehensive and does not generate false positives leading to the over prescribing of CPAP therapy. Furthermore, as large volumes of patients come through this intelligent system, we suggest that machine-based learning should be applied to further refine decision prompts [34]. We have described the use for initial assessment, but having collected and stored the initial data, the next opportunity is to make use of informatics for objective monitoring and follow-up of their progress, and much of that may be possible remotely.

In conclusion, we have shown that an intelligent CGC system may be used both by a specialist physician or a nonspecialist working under specialist supervision to assess patients with suspected OSAS to a point of suggesting management in line with national guideline standards. A high level of diagnostic concordance between the CGC and a sleep specialist was observed with no adverse decisions. Using “evolved” clinical decision support systems such as a CGC can facilitate assessment of people with suspected OSA allowing new management pathways to be developed.

Acknowledgement

The CGC is owned by LungHealth Ltd. (Swaffham, UK).

Footnotes

  • Author contributions: The CGC was designed by B. Chakrabarti, R. Angus, M. Pearson, S. Craig, L. Davies, K. Sheridan and E. McKnight. P. England programmed the CGC. Data collection was performed by N. Lewis-Burke and B. Chakrabarti. All authors contributed to the study design, data analysis and manuscript preparation

  • Conflict of interest: B. Chakrabarti reports that the CGC is owned by LungHealth Ltd and has been previously employed for consultancy work with Lunghealth Ltd. (Swaffham, UK).

  • Conflict of interest: N. Lewis-Burke has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Pearson is a Director of LungHealth Ltd.

  • Conflict of interest: S. Craig has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: L. Davies is a Director of Lunghealth Ltd.

  • Conflict of interest: K. Sheridan has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: P. England is employed by LungHealth Ltd.

  • Conflict of interest: E. McKnight is a Director of LungHealth Ltd and reports that LungHealth Ltd. (Swaffham, UK) funded the salary of the software developer.

  • Conflict of interest: R. Angus is a Director of LungHealth Ltd.

  • Received January 7, 2020.
  • Accepted May 8, 2020.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2020
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Young T,
    2. Mari P,
    3. Dempsey J, et al.
    The occurrence of sleep-disordered breathing among middle-aged adults. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 1230–1235. doi:10.1056/NEJM199304293281704
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Peppard PE,
    2. Young T,
    3. Barnet JH, et al.
    Original contribution increased prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing in adults. Am J Epidemiol 2013; 177: 1006–1014. doi:10.1093/aje/kws342
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Peppard P,
    2. Young T,
    3. Palta M, et al.
    Prospective study of the association between sleep-disordered breathing and hypertension. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1378–1384. doi:10.1056/NEJM200005113421901
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Shahar E,
    2. Whitney CW,
    3. Redline S, et al.
    Sleep-disordered breathing and cardiovascular disease: cross-sectional results of the sleep heart health study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 163: 19–25. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.163.1.2001008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Mehra R,
    2. Benjamin EJ,
    3. Shahar E, et al.
    Association of nocturnal arrhythmias with sleep-disordered breathing: the sleep heart health study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006; 173: 910–916. doi:10.1164/rccm.200509-1442OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Tregear S,
    2. Reston J,
    3. Schoelles K, et al.
    Obstructive sleep apnea and risk of motor vehicle crash: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Sleep Med 2009; 5: 573–581. doi:10.5664/jcsm.27662
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Vennelle M,
    2. Engleman HM,
    3. Douglas NJ
    . Sleepiness and sleep-related accidents in commercial bus drivers. Sleep Breath 2010; 14: 39–42. doi:10.1007/s11325-009-0277-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Karimi M,
    2. Hedner J,
    3. Lombardi C, et al.
    Driving habits and risk factors for traffic accidents among sleep apnea patients - a European multi-centre cohort study. J Sleep Res 2014; 23: 689–699. doi:10.1111/jsr.12171
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Parks PD,
    2. Durand G,
    3. Tsismenakis AJ, et al.
    Screening for obstructive sleep apnea during commercial driver medical examinations. J Occup Environ Med 2009; 51: 275–282. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e31819eaaa4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Catarino R,
    2. Spratley J,
    3. Catarino I, et al.
    Sleepiness and sleep-disordered breathing in truck drivers: risk analysis of road accidents. Sleep Breath 2014; 18: 59–68. doi:10.1007/s11325-013-0848-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sjösten N,
    2. Kivimäki M,
    3. Oksanen T, et al.
    Obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome as a predictor of work disability. Respir Med 2009; 103: 1047–1055. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2009.01.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sjösten N,
    2. Vahtera J,
    3. Salo P, et al.
    Increased risk of lost workdays prior to the diagnosis of sleep apnea. Chest 2009; 136: 130–136. doi:10.1378/chest.08-2201
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Nena E,
    2. Steiropoulos P,
    3. Constantinidis TC, et al.
    Work productivity in obstructive sleep apnea patients. J Occup Environ Med 2010; 52: 622–625. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181e12b05
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sivertsen B,
    2. Øverland S,
    3. Glozier N, et al.
    The effect of OSAS on sick leave and work disability. Eur Respir J 2008; 32: 1497–1503. doi:10.1183/09031936.00044908
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Uehli K,
    2. Mehta AJ,
    3. Miedinger D, et al.
    Sleep problems and work injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev 2014; 18: 61–73. doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2013.01.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Hirsch Allen AJM,
    2. Bansback N,
    3. Ayas NT
    . The effect of OSA on work disability and work-related injuries. Chest 2015; 147: 1422–1428. doi:10.1378/chest.14-1949
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Giles TL,
    2. Lasserson TJ,
    3. Smith BJ, et al.
    Continuous positive airways pressure for obstructive sleep apnoea in adults (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006: CD001106.
  9. ↵
    1. Turkington PM,
    2. Sircar M,
    3. Allgar V, et al.
    Relationship between obstructive sleep apnoea, driving simulator performance, and risk of road traffic accidents. Thorax 2001; 56: 800–805. doi:10.1136/thorax.56.10.800
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Mulgrew AT,
    2. Fox N,
    3. Ayas NT, et al.
    Diagnosis and initial management of obstructive sleep apnea without polysomnography: a randomized validation study. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 157–166. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-146-3-200702060-00004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Scharf MB,
    2. Stover R,
    3. McDannold MD, et al.
    Outcome evaluation of long-term nasal continuous positive airway pressure therapy in obstructive sleep apnea. Am J Ther 1999; 6: 293–297. doi:10.1097/00045391-199911000-00002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Angus RM,
    2. Thompson EB,
    3. Davies L, et al.
    Feasibility and impact of a computer-guided consultation on guideline-based management of COPD in general practice. Prim Care Respir J 2012; 21: 425–430. doi:10.4104/pcrj.2012.00088
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    The Caldicott Report. IHRIM 1999; 40: 17–19.
  13. ↵
    1. Johns MW
    . A new method for measuring daytime sleepiness: the Epworth sleepiness scale. Sleep 1991; 14: 540–545. doi:10.1093/sleep/14.6.540
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Berry RB,
    2. Brooks R,
    3. Gamaldo C, et al.
    AASM scoring manual updates for 2017 (version 2.4). J Clin Sleep Med 2017; 13: 665–666. doi:10.5664/jcsm.6576
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    NICE. Continuous positive airway pressure for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome. NICE Technology Appraisal guidance 139. London, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2008. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta139/chapter/1-guidance. (Date last updated: 26th March 2008; Date last accessed 30th April 2020). www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta139/chapter/1-guidance.
  16. ↵
    1. Landis JR,
    2. Koch GG
    . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. O'Sullivan D,
    2. Fraccaro P,
    3. Carson E, et al.
    Decision time for clinical decision support systems. Clin Med (Lond) 2014; 14: 338–341. doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.14-4-338
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Rejón Parrilla JC,
    2. Garau M,
    3. Sussex J
    . Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Health Economics Report. London, British Lung Foundation, 2014.
  19. ↵
    1. Frauscher B,
    2. Ehrmann L,
    3. Mitterling T, et al.
    Delayed diagnosis, range of severity, and multiple sleep comorbidities: A clinical and polysomnographic analysis of 100 patients of the Innsbruck narcolepsy cohort. J Clin Sleep Med 2013; 9: 805–812. doi:10.5664/jcsm.2926
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Roshanov PS,
    2. Fernandes N,
    3. Wilczynski JM, et al.
    Features of effective computerised clinical decision support systems: meta-regression of 162 randomised trials. BMJ 2013; 346: f657. doi:10.1136/bmj.f657
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Ohayon MM,
    2. Guilleminault C,
    3. Zulley J, et al.
    Validation of the sleep-EVAL system against clinical assessments of sleep disorders and polysomnographic data. Sleep 1999; 22: 925–930. doi:10.1093/sleep/22.7.925
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Laporta R,
    2. Anandam A,
    3. El-Solh AA
    . Screening for obstructive sleep apnea in veterans with ischemic heart disease using a computer-based clinical decision-support system. Clin Res Cardiol 2012; 101: 737–744. doi:10.1007/s00392-012-0453-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Blake J,
    2. Kerr D
    . Sleep disorder diagnosis: the design and implications of online tools. Decis Anal 2014; 1: 7. doi:10.1186/2193-8636-1-7
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Kim JT
    . Application of machine and deep learning algorithms in intelligent clinical decision support systems in healthcare. J Heal Med Informatics 2019; 9: 1000321.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 6 Issue 3 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 6 (3)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Implementation of a computer-guided consultation in the assessment of suspected obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Implementation of a computer-guided consultation in the assessment of suspected obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome
Biswajit Chakrabarti, Nadia Lewis-Burke, Mike Pearson, Sonya Craig, Lisa Davies, Kim Sheridan, Philip England, Eddie McKnight, Robert Angus
ERJ Open Research Jul 2020, 6 (3) 00362-2019; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00362-2019

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Implementation of a computer-guided consultation in the assessment of suspected obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome
Biswajit Chakrabarti, Nadia Lewis-Burke, Mike Pearson, Sonya Craig, Lisa Davies, Kim Sheridan, Philip England, Eddie McKnight, Robert Angus
ERJ Open Research Jul 2020, 6 (3) 00362-2019; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00362-2019
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgement
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Sleep medicine
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Original articles

  • Characteristics and impact of EILO
  • A common model for the breathlessness experience
  • Endobronchial autologous BM-MSCs in IPF patients
Show more Original articles

Sleep

  • AHI 5 as a metabolomic threshold in patients with sleep complaints
  • Performance of cough monitoring by Albus Home
  • Baseline clusters and response to PAP in OSA patients
Show more Sleep

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society