PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 7844612

The practice guidelines development cycle: a conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To develop a conceptual tool for the systematic development of cancer treatment practice guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The guidelines development tool, the Practice Guidelines Development Cycle, was derived from observing an evidence-based practice guidelines initiative at a comprehensive cancer center in Ontario, Canada, and from a literature review that uncovered barriers to guidelines development and implementation. Based on the literature findings and direct observations of how clinicians struggled with evidence-based guidelines development, we evolved a framework to incorporate clinical and administrative factors (eg, costs) into evidence-based guidelines. Use of the Practice Guidelines Development Cycle is illustrated with a clinical example (the use of adjuvant systemic therapy in good-risk, node-negative premenopausal breast cancer patients). RESULTS: The result is the Practice Guidelines Development Cycle, which consists of eight sequential steps, from topic selection to policy formulation. Independent validation of guidelines is included. The cycle products are the evidence-based recommendation, the practice guideline, and the practice policy. The main features of the cycle are emphasis on scientific evidence, acknowledgment of the roles of clinical experience and nonclinical (administrative) factors through consensus, and explicit separation of clinical and cost considerations in guidelines development. Twenty guidelines are currently in development. CONCLUSION: Attention to the barriers of guidelines development and the sociocultural nature of clinical practice, and respect for clinical experience, can lead to improved strategies for guidelines development.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G P Browman, M N Levine, E A Mohide, R S Hayward, K I Pritchard, A Gafni, A Laupacis. 1995. The practice guidelines development cycle: a conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation.. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1995.13.2.502

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The National Cancer Data Base report on completeness of American Joint Committee on Cancer staging in United States cancer facilities. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer and the American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND: American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging is increasingly accepted as a prognostic standard for cancer management. The Commission on Cancer requires approved cancer programs to use AJCC staging for all cancers. Previous studies document increasing use of AJCC staging by hospitals with cancer programs. This review examines programmatic and clinical factors affecting AJCC staging completeness. METHODS: The data are registry records submitted to the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) for cases diagnosed during 1993 or, for comparison, 1988. RESULTS: The mean facility staging rate was 87% in 1993, up from 65% in 1988. Approximately 64% of facilities staged greater than 90% of their stageable cases; 3% staged less than 5%. Even facilities with "complete" staging implementation were unable to stage substantial portions of some sites. Accessibility of tumor and overall prognosis affected the choice between pathologic and clinical staging. Staging completeness and the mix of pathologic and clinical staging also differed by state of the reporting facility. CONCLUSIONS: AJCC staging use is high among common tumors for which treatment is dependent upon stage of disease. However, if accurate staging is not expected to affect the treatment or outcome of the case or the overall outcome is poor, staging is less frequently recorded.

Cancer Care Facilities

Tertiary cancer services in Britain: benchmarking study of activity and facilities at 12 specialist centres.

OBJECTIVE: To collate information on current activity and facilities in British hospitals to assist the planning of future cancer services. DESIGN: 12 hospitals delivering specialist cancer services provided information on the size of population served, activity levels related to non-surgical oncology for 1994-5, and facilities available. Inconsistencies in the recording of data were resolved through meetings of all participants. SETTING: Five single specialty NHS trusts and seven specialist cancer facilities within multispecialty trusts, serving a combined population of 24.3 million. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Activity levels and facilities per million population served. RESULTS: The facilities available per million population served varied widely between centres. In contrast, the range in the number of new referrals per million population (seen either at the centre or in peripheral clinics) was relatively small. Considerable variations were observed in the number of attendances per patient and amount of radiotherapy and chemotherapy delivered. Overall it was estimated that 40-45% of all new cases of cancer are currently being referred to non-surgical oncologists. For the seven hospitals which could provide data on trends in activity, the average increase in chemotherapy day case episodes between 1992-3 and 1994-5 was 83%. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide a benchmark both for purchasers and providers of cancer care. The increase in the use of chemotherapy points to an urgent need for a unified system for monitoring both activity and outcomes of treatment.

Cancer Care Facilities

Benefits from specialised cancer care.

The Expert Advisory Group's recommendations to establish cancer centres, cancer units, and a network involving primary care for the treatment of cancer patients in the UK is based on the view that specialisation in cancer care will improve outcomes. Evidence to support the various aspects of specialisation (eg, training, caseload, and the formation of multidisciplinary teams) is strongest for breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and some haematological malignant diseases. There is evidence to support the view that some specialised care can be successfully delivered by a network of district hospitals and main general or teaching hospitals and does not always require referral to cancer centres.

Cancer Care Facilities