Should we keep pushing for a spirometer in every doctor's office?
Professional societies have encouraged primary care providers to conduct spirometry testing for the detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In spite of this effort, the success rate is unacceptably low. Simple flow-sensing spirometers have technical flaws that can  cause misreadings, and they are rarely checked for accuracy. When spirometry is performed by an experienced technologist, and when payment is made on the criterion of quality, the success rate for adults and school-aged children can be as high as 90%. But testing remains a challenge for younger  children and the elderly. Regular feedback for the technologist about their testing results is essential. Even with an accurate spirometer, an able patient, and a skilled technologist, the ordering physician may wrongly interpret the data. Use of spirometry in primary care will continue to  be problematic unless high quality testing is tied to reimbursement. Using FEV(1) or peak flow measurements to rule out airway abnormality in the majority of patients, followed by referral for more sophisticated studies in those remaining, may be the best approach. Respiratory therapists  should engage in this effort.
Respiratory Science Center, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA.
Paul L
PL
Enright
D003951:Diagnostic Errors; D006801:Humans; D007349:Insurance, Health, Reimbursement / Q000191:economics; D011320:Primary Health Care / Q000592:standards*; D029424:Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000191:economics; D016540:Smoking Cessation; D013147:Spirometry / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*