Biomedical subjects

Jean Slutsky

Publications and source records attributed to Jean Slutsky.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Better information for better health care: the Evidence-based Practice Center program and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

To provide decision makers with the best available evidence, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality established a network of Evidence-based Practice Centers across North America. The centers perform systematic reviews on important questions posed by partner organizations about clinical, organizational, and policy interventions in healthcare. The Agency works closely with partners and other decision maker s to help translate that evidence into practice or policy. In this paper, we review important lessons we have learned over the past 7 years about how to increase the efficiency and impact of systematic reviews. Lessons concern selecting the right topics and scope, working effectively with partners, and balancing consistency and flexibility in methods. We examine continuing evolutions of the program and the impact of planned work on comparative effectiveness performed as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗

PubMed2003

Standardized reporting of clinical practice guidelines: a proposal from the Conference on Guideline Standardization.

Despite enormous energies invested in authoring clinical practice guidelines, the quality of individual guidelines varies considerably. The Conference on Guideline Standardization (COGS) was convened in April 2002 to define a standard for guideline reporting that would promote guideline quality and facilitate implementation. Twenty-three people with expertise and experience in guideline development, dissemination, and implementation participated. A list of candidate guideline components was assembled from the Institute of Medicine Provisional Instrument for Assessing Clinical Guidelines, the National Guideline Clearinghouse, the Guideline Elements Model, and other published guideline models. In a 2-stage modified Delphi process, panelists first rated their agreement with the statement that "[Item name] is a necessary component of practice guidelines" on a 9-point scale. An individualized report was prepared for each panelist; the report summarized the panelist's rating for each item and the median and dispersion of rankings of all the panelists. In a second round, panelists separately rated necessity for validity and necessity for practical application. Items achieving a median rank of 7 or higher on either scale, with low disagreement index, were retained as necessary guideline components. Representatives of 22 organizations active in guideline development reviewed the proposed items and commented favorably. Closely related items were consolidated into 18 topics to create the COGS checklist. This checklist provides a framework to support more comprehensive documentation of practice guidelines. Most organizations that are active in guideline development found the component items to be comprehensive and to fit within their existing development methods.

Documentation↗

PubMed2002

Translating research into practice: the future ahead.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize and analyze the focus and methodologies of the Translating Research into Practice (TRIP) projects funded in 1999-2000 by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). DATA SOURCES AND STUDY DESIGN: An analysis of the successful applications for the TRIP I and II requests for applications in 1999 and 2000 was produced from the data collected. DATA COLLECTION: The following items were abstracted from each of the successful applications: provider focus, patient population, vulnerable populations, methodologies, interventions for change, outcomes measured, and conceptual framework used. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: AHRQ funded 27 TRIP grants in 1999 and 2000. A wide variety of health care providers, settings, and patients were the target of the grants. The most common study design was a randomized controlled trial. The most common TRIP interventions were educational and the most common frameworks were either adult learning theory or organizational theory. More than half of the projects planned to use information technology and half the projects had a focus on reducing errors. CONCLUSIONS: The TRIP projects encompass a broad range of providers, environments, patients, and interventions. The field of applied research and quality improvements should be considerably enhanced by these research projects.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Making policy when the evidence is in dispute.

Policymakers often struggle with medical issues that are the subject of fierce scientific debate. On closer examination, many of these debates are manifestations of conflicting perspectives and values as much as disagreements over the evidence. We summarize common factors underlying recent debates and outline a series of questions that can help disentangle questions of evidence from those of values. These questions focus on identifying the most important outcomes, evaluating the quality of evidence, and assessing the trade-offs involved. We then use four recent policy debates-involving prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, high-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer, antibiotic therapy for otitis media, and newborn hearing screening-to illustrate how this approach can help clarify areas of agreement and disagreement of the opposing sides.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗