SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Guidelines”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 955 records · Page 53Linked to original sources

PubMed2002

Evaluating the quality of internet-based information about alternative therapies: development of the BIOME guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to develop guidelines for evaluating the quality of Internet-based information about alternative therapies. METHOD: An expert committee drafted a set of guidelines for evaluating information relating to alternative therapies. The guidelines were subsequently refined by testing them using resources already included in the BIOME databases. The first 20 unique web sites about alternative therapies for cancer retrieved using a general search engine and a United Kingdom focused search engine were then evaluated using the refined guidelines. Those undertaking the evaluations also completed a questionnaire relating to the face and content validity of the guidelines. The participants in the implementation stage were six content providers. Content providers identify, evaluate and describe resources for inclusion in the BIOME databases. RESULTS: Only one web site out of 20 was selected by all six content providers for inclusion in the BIOME databases according to the alternative therapies guidelines. All content providers were in agreement regarding the exclusion of nine sites, but there were discrepancies regarding the remaining 10 resources. There was general agreement that the guidelines were easy to understand and that all points raised were necessary. However, there were differences of opinion regarding whether all issues were covered, whether the guidelines allowed the selection of only the highest quality resources, and whether the guidelines were applicable to a wide range of Internet-based resources about alternative therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The levels of inconsistencies in the results indicate the need for the further development of the BIOME guidelines for selecting information about alternative therapies.

Complementary Therapies↗

PubMed1997

The successful implementation of pharmaceutical practice guidelines. Analysis of associated outcomes and cost savings. SWiPE Group. Systematic Withdrawal of Perioperative Expenses.

BACKGROUND: Although approximately 2,000 medical practice guidelines have been proposed, few have been successfully implemented and sustained. We hypothesized that we could develop and institute practice guidelines to promote more appropriate use of costly anesthetics, to generate and sustain widespread compliance from a large physician group, and to decrease costs without adversely affecting clinical outcomes. METHODS: A prospective before and after comparison study was performed at a tertiary care medical center. Clinical outcomes data and times indicative of perioperative patient flow were collected on the first of two sets of patients 1 month before discussion of practice guidelines. Practice guidelines were developed by the physicians and their associated care team for the intraoperative use of anesthetic drugs. A drug distribution process was developed to aid compliance. Clinical outcomes data and times indicative of perioperative patient flow were collected on the second set of patients 1 month after institution of practice guidelines. Hospital drug costs and adherence to guidelines were noted throughout the study period and for each of the following 9 months by querying the database of an automated anesthesia record keeper. RESULTS: A total of 1,744 patients were studied. Drug costs decreased from 56 dollars per case to 32 dollars per case as a result of adherence to practice guidelines. Perioperative patient flow was minimally affected. Time (mean +/- SD) from end of surgery to arrival in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) increased from 11 +/- 7 min before the authors instituted practice guidelines to 14 +/- 8 min after practice guidelines (P < 0.0001). Admission of inpatients to the PACU receiving monitored anesthesia care increased from 6.5 to 12.9% (P < 0.02). Perioperative patient flow and clinical outcomes were not otherwise adversely affected. Compliance and cost savings have been sustained. CONCLUSIONS: This study is an example of a successful physician-directed program to promote more appropriate utilization of health care resources. Cost savings were obtained without any substantial changes in clinical outcomes. Institution of similar practice guidelines should result in pharmaceutical savings in the range of 50% at tertiary care centers around the country, with a slightly smaller degree of savings expected at institutions with more ambulatory surgery.

Anesthesiology↗

PubMed1994

Guidelines, practice policies, and parameters: the case for geriatrics.

OBJECTIVE: As the population ages, the care of older persons becomes more important. At the same time, practice guidelines that provide recommendations for appropriate care are being published in greater numbers. The purpose of this work is to determine the proportion of guidelines that contain specific information about older persons. DESIGN: Through a random sample of published guidelines listed in the AMA Directory of Practice Parameters, 1992 Edition, we determined the proportion of guidelines that contain specific age-related information. We also determined if, over time, there was a difference in the proportion of practice guidelines containing information about older persons. RESULTS: 45.9% (95% CI, range 33.4-58.4) of guidelines that could conceivably pertain to older persons contain no age information; 24.6% (95% CI, range 13.8-35.4) of guidelines contain information only about persons less than 65 years of age; 29.5% (95% CI, range 18.1-41.0) of guidelines contain specific information about older persons. Moreover, there were no secular trends in the proportion of guidelines pertaining to older persons. CONCLUSIONS: Only a minority of practice guidelines contain information about older persons. Possible causes and solutions to this shortfall are discussed.

Age Factors↗

PubMed2006

Inconsistencies in endoscope-reprocessing and infection-control guidelines: the importance of endoscope drying.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscope reprocessing is a multi-stepped process that renders a contaminated endoscope safe for reuse. Its steps include meticulous cleaning, complete immersion in a liquid chemical sterilant (LCS) or disinfectant to achieve high-level disinfection (or "liquid sterilization"), water rinsing, and proper handling and storage. Surveys and reports indicate that not all health-care facilities dry their endoscopes after reprocessing. Endoscope drying can be easily, quickly, and inexpensively achieved by flushing the endoscope's internal channels, and wiping its external surfaces, with 70-90% ethyl or isopropyl alcohol, to facilitate drying after reprocessing, followed by compressed or forced air. METHODS: The medical literature was reviewed to evaluate the importance of endoscope drying to the prevention of disease transmission. Several national and international endoscope-reprocessing and infection-control guidelines and a public health advisory were also reviewed and compared for consistency and to evaluate the emphasis each places on endoscope drying. If a guideline recommends endoscope drying, this study clarified whether this step is recommended after reprocessing throughout the day (i.e., between patient procedures), before storage, or both. These guidelines were also reviewed to determine whether any of them recommend reprocessing endoscopes before the first patient of the day. RESULTS: This review identified several published reports and clinical studies that demonstrate the significant contribution of endoscope drying to the prevention of disease transmission. This review also identified significant differences and inconsistencies regarding the emphasis different published guidelines and a public health advisory place on endoscope drying. Some guidelines recommend drying the endoscope after completion of every reprocessing cycle, both throughout the day and before storage, while others deemphasize its importance and recommend endoscope drying only before storage, if at all. Instead of recommending endoscope drying before storage, some guidelines recommend reprocessing endoscopes before the first patient of the day. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The finding that several guidelines are inconsistent with one another and that some are remiss and fail to recommend endoscope drying is of concern. Endoscope drying is as important to the prevention of nosocomial infection as cleaning and high-level disinfection (or "liquid sterilization"). Whereas wet or inadequately dried endoscopes pose an increased risk of contamination and have been associated with transmission of waterborne microorganisms and nosocomial infection, thoroughly dried (and properly cleaned and high-level disinfected) endoscopes have not been linked to nosocomial infection. Moreover, inconsistent guidelines can confuse reprocessing staff members and result in noncompliance, variations in the standard of care, and ineffective reprocessing. To minimize the risk of disease transmission and nosocomial infection, modification and revision of guidelines are recommended as required to be consistent with one another and to unconditionally recommend endoscope drying after completion of every reprocessing cycle, both between patient procedures and before storage, no matter the label claim of the LCS or disinfectant, the label claim of the automated reprocessing system, or the microbial quality of the rinse water. According to the medical literature, adoption of this recommendation may reduce the importance of not only monitoring the microbial quality of the rinse water, but also reprocessing endoscopes before the first patient of the day, both of which can be costly practices that a few guidelines recommend.

Cross Infection↗

PubMed1997

Radiography for head trauma in children: what guidelines should we use?

OBJECTIVE: To audit the appropriateness of skill radiography in children attending an accident and emergency (A&E) department with head injuries. METHODS: 569 children presenting to a large teaching hospital A&E unit were retrospectively audited. The indications for radiography according to British published guidelines and American published guidelines were compared with the actual requests for radiography. The criteria for admission from the two guidelines were also compared with the actual admissions. RESULTS: 50% of children presenting with head injury actually had skull radiography. If British guidelines for the use of skull radiography had been complied with, 63% of children should have had radiography, but if American guidelines had been used, 18% would have required radiography. All the actual fractures identified were in this 18%. CONCLUSIONS: The British guidelines overinvestigate children with head injury. This seems to have been recognised clinically, and the doctors did not adhere to the guidelines. Neither did they adhere to the American guidelines, which would have resulted in a further reduction in radiography. All the fractures identified were covered by the American guidelines. The American guidelines for skull radiography can be safely used in a British A&E unit.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2001

Formal consensus: the development of a national clinical guideline.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a political enthusiasm for the development and use of clinical guidelines despite, paradoxically, there being relatively few healthcare issues that have a sound research evidence base. As decisions have to be made even where there is an undetermined evidence base and that limiting recommendations to where evidence exists may reduce the scope of guidelines, thus limiting their value to practitioners, guideline developers have to rely on various different sources of evidence and adapt their methods accordingly. This paper outlines a method for guideline development which incorporates a consensus process devised to tackle the challenges of a variable research evidence base for the development of a national clinical guideline on risk assessment and prevention of pressure ulcers. METHOD: To inform the recommendations of the guideline a formal consensus process based on a nominal group technique was used to incorporate three strands of evidence: research, clinical expertise, and patient experience. RESULTS: The recommendations for this guideline were derived directly from the statements agreed in the formal consensus process and from key evidence-based findings from the systematic reviews. The existing format of the statements that participants had rated allowed a straightforward revision to "active" recommendations, thus reducing further risk of subjectivity entering into the process. CONCLUSIONS: The method outlined proved to be a practical and systematic way of integrating a number of different evidence sources. The resultant guideline is a mixture of research based and consensus based recommendations. Given the lack of available guidance on how to mix research with expert opinion and patient experiences, the method used for the development of this guideline has been outlined so that other guideline developers may use, adapt, and test it further.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Cross-sectional analysis of guidelines on cardiovascular disease risk factors: going to meet the inconsistencies.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the possible inconsistency of statements among the practice guidelines of the Dutch College of General Practitioners (DCGP) with respect to the management of risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of all electronically available DCGP practice guidelines dealing with CVD risk factor management for statement inconsistencies and reference inconsistencies. RESULTS: Six DCGP guidelines out of 74 electronically available guidelines had either CVD or CVD risk factors as the subject of the guideline. Eight statement inconsistencies-were found, and for each statement inconsistency, a reference inconsistency was present. CONCLUSIONS: Given that inconsistencies were found, the authors recommend that organizations that maintain a set of guidelines update the guidelines using a cross-sectional analysis of guidelines. Inconsistencies between guidelines might lead to physicians being unintentionally noncompliant with guideline recommendations.

Cardiovascular Diseases↗

PubMed2026

Treatment of localized rectal cancer in the Nordic countries-comparison of Nordic to Dutch, ESMO, and NCCN guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer treatment in Nordic countries has traditionally differed, especially regarding neoadjuvant treatment. The aim of this review is to give an overview of the current rectal cancer guidelines in the Nordics and compare these to international guidelines. METHODS: Oncologists and colorectal surgeons from the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden) and the Netherlands were invited to participate in this narrative review. Two consensus meetings were held to agree on the content. All authors provided recommendations from their national guidelines. In addition, recommendations from the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and from the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines were extracted. RESULTS: Several differences between the included guidelines were identified. The radiological "sigmoid take-off" definition for the upper margin of the rectum has been adapted in Denmark and the Netherlands, whereas the other guidelines rely on distance from the anal verge on rigid sigmoidoscopy. Indications for direct surgery vary considerably, where the NCCN guidelines recommend more aggressive neoadjuvant treatment, primarily total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), the Nordic and European guidelines open for direct surgery more often, and reserve especially TNT for high-risk cases. European countries more often recommend short-course radiotherapy, whereas NCCN maintains chemoradiotherapy as the mainstay. Whereas intentional and opportunistic organ preservation is an established part of the Dutch, NCCN, and ESMO guidelines, its use is mostly restricted to clinical trials in the Nordics. The Nordics and the Netherlands are restrictive in terms of adjuvant treatment, which is frequently recommended in ESMO and NCCN. Whereas neoadjuvant immunotherapy is recommended for mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) rectal cancer in NCCN, this use is off-label in Europe and not routinely recommended. CONCLUSION: Although all guidelines rely on the same evidence, there are considerable differences, especially in the indications and type of oncologic treatment, both in the neoadjuvant and in the adjuvant setting.

Rectal Neoplasms↗

PubMed2005

Barriers to success for an evidence-based guideline for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate 1) barriers to clinical guideline use and 2) the relationship between guideline use and inpatient outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: 1) Four focus groups of specific health professions (n = 30), from three metropolitan hospitals, and interview of 99 medical officers (MOs), linked to 349 admissions, both guided by behavioural modelling theory; 2) association between guideline use and patient outcomes (length of hospital stay > or = 14 days, and readmission within 28 or 90 days) was evaluated in a cohort of 405 COPD patients. RESULTS: 1) In focus groups, nurses and allied health professionals emphasized facilitation issues including paperwork duplication and time limitations as barriers, but considered improved patient care outcomes as the major guideline use determinant. There were similar findings in junior MOs (nonconsultants) by both focus group and interview, with the addition of a need for a sense of ownership. Senior MOs (consultants) greatly emphasized sense of ownership. Barriers to guideline use varied between types of units. Behavioural modelling explained 49% of the variation in intention to use the guideline for MOs. For nonconsultants, habit and intention were significantly associated with extent of guideline use. 2) Patient outcomes: guideline use was not associated with length of stay or readmission. CONCLUSIONS: 1) Guideline implementation should address issues relevant to different health professions, units and seniority of profession. 2) Guideline use was not associated with reductions in readmission or length of stay.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Insurance status and the use of guideline therapy in the treatment of selected cancers.

PURPOSE: This study estimates the impact of type of insurance coverage on the receipt of guideline therapy in a population-based sample of cancer patients treated in the community. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 7,134) from the National Cancer Institute's Patterns of Care studies who were newly diagnosed with 11 different types of cancer were analyzed. The definition of guideline therapy was based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network treatment recommendations. Insurance status was categorized as a mutually exclusive hierarchical variable (no insurance, any private insurance, any Medicaid, Medicare only, and all other). Multivariate analyses were used to examine the association between insurance and receipt of guideline therapy. RESULTS: Adjusting for clinical and nonclinical variables, insurance status was a modest, although statistically significant, determinant of receipt of guideline therapy, with 65% of the privately insured patients receiving recommended therapy compared with 60% of patients with Medicaid. Seventy percent of the uninsured patients received guideline therapy, which was nonsignificantly different compared with private insurance. When stratified by race, insurance was a statistically significant predictor of the receipt of guideline therapy only for non-Hispanic blacks. CONCLUSION: Overall, levels of guideline treatment were lower than expected and particularly low for patients with Medicaid or Medicare only. The use of guideline therapy for ovarian and cervical cancer patients and for patients with rectal cancers was unrelated to type of insurance. Of particular concern is the significantly lower use of guideline therapy for non-Hispanic black patients with Medicaid. After adjusting for other factors, only half of these patients received guideline therapy.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Hospital guidelines for use of low-molecular-weight heparins.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of guidelines for initial use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and other anticoagulants in acute-care hospitals that are part of a national group purchasing organization (GPO). DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search (1970-December 2001) was conducted to identify evidence on the efficacy of various anticoagulants for initial therapy in deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, and in treatment of acute coronary syndrome. A group consensus method was then used to develop guidelines. Guidelines were reviewed and revised by an internal expert panel as well as an external expert panel. Final guidelines were disseminated to GPO members and assistance was provided with implementation at the local level. RESULTS: The final set of guidelines is described. The guidelines are organized based on recommended therapeutic options for each indication. For each option, consensus opinion is provided on the level of evidence that exists in the literature, comparisons of cost and convenience, and additional dosing information. The guidelines were disseminated along with supporting material to interested GPO member hospitals, and teleconferences were held to facilitate implementation at the local level. The guidelines were initially implemented at 18 hospitals across the country. CONCLUSIONS: The process by which these guidelines were developed, plus the final set of guidelines, may be useful to hospitals and healthcare systems contemplating or engaged in a similar effort with this class of drugs.

Anticoagulants↗

PubMed2002

Influence of deviation from guidelines on the outcome of community-acquired pneumonia.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: s: Consensus guidelines for the empirical treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) have been published. We investigated the following factors: (1) the degree of adherence to American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR) guidelines; and (2) the influence of adhering to these guidelines on mortality and length of hospitalization. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Tertiary-care teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Two hundred ninety-five patients with CAP who were consecutively admitted to the hospital and treated empirically. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were stratified according to the prognostic rule of Fine, and the antibiotic regimen prescribed in the first 24 h was evaluated as to whether or not it adhered to treatment guidelines. RESULTS: Adherence to SEPAR and ATS guidelines was 66% and 88%, respectively. There were no significant differences in mortality or duration of hospitalization between adherent and nonadherent regimens. However, mortality in severe CAP (Fine risk class V) was significantly higher in patients with nonadherent treatments (SEPAR: relative risk [RR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 5.6; ATS: RR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1 to 5.8). In a multivariate analysis, adherence to ATS guidelines was independently associated with decreased mortality (RR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.9) after adjusting for the Fine score. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence was higher to ATS guidelines than to SEPAR guidelines. Severe CAP had a significantly higher mortality when the guidelines (both ATS and SEPAR) were not followed. Length of hospitalization was similar irrespective of adherence to either set of guidelines.

Aged↗

PubMed2004

Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To identify existing guidelines and develop a synthesised guideline plus accompanying checklist. In addition to provide guidance on key theoretical, methodological and practical issues and consider the implications of this research for what might be expected of future decision-analytic models. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of existing good practice guidelines was undertaken to identify and summarise guidelines currently available for assessing the quality of decision-analytic models that have been undertaken for health technology assessment. A synthesised good practice guidance and accompanying checklist was developed. Two specific methods areas in decision modelling were considered. The first method's topic is the identification of parameter estimates from published literature. Parameter searches were developed and piloted using a case-study model. The second topic relates to bias in parameter estimates; that is, how to adjust estimates of treatment effect from observational studies where there are risks of selection bias. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify those studies looking at quantification of bias in parameter estimates and the implication of this bias. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed and consolidated into a single set of brief statements of good practice. From this, a checklist was developed and applied to three independent decision-analytic models. Although the checklist provided excellent guidance on some key issues for model evaluation, it was too general to pick up on the specific nuances of each model. The searches that were developed helped to identify important data for inclusion in the model. However, the quality of life searches proved to be problematic: the published search filters did not focus on those measures specific to cost-effectiveness analysis and although the strategies developed as part of this project were more successful few data were found. Of the 11 studies meeting the criteria on the effect of selection bias, five concluded that a non-randomised trial design is associated with bias and six studies found 'similar' estimates of treatment effects from observational studies or non-randomised clinical trials and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). One purpose of developing the synthesised guideline and checklist was to provide a framework for critical appraisal by the various parties involved in the health technology assessment process. First, the guideline and checklist can be used by groups that are reviewing other analysts' models and, secondly, the guideline and checklist could be used by the various analysts as they develop their models (to use it as a check on how they are developing and reporting their analyses). The Expert Advisory Group (EAG) that was convened to discuss the potential role of the guidance and checklist felt that, in general, the guidance and checklist would be a useful tool, although the checklist is not meant to be used exclusively to determine a model's quality, and so should not be used as a substitute for critical appraisal. CONCLUSIONS: The review of current guidelines showed that although authors may provide a consistent message regarding some aspects of modelling, in other areas conflicting attributes are presented in different guidelines. In general, the checklist appears to perform well, in terms of identifying those aspects of the model that should be of particular concern to the reader. The checklist cannot, however, provide answers to the appropriateness of the model structure and structural assumptions, as these may be seen as a general problem with generic checklists and do not reflect any shortcoming with the synthesised guidance and checklist developed here. The assessment of the checklist, as well as feedback from the EAG, indicated the importance of its use in conjunction with a more general checklist or guidelines on economic evaluation. Further methods research into the following areas would be valuable: the quantification of selection bias in non-controlled studies and in controlled observational studies; the level of bias in the different non-RCT study designs; a comparison of results from RCTs with those from other non-randomised studies; assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of alternative ways to adjust for bias in a decision model; and how to prioritise searching for parameter estimates.

Benchmarking↗

PubMed2003

Improving antibiotic use: 25 years of antibiotic guidelines and related initiatives.

In the late 1970s concern in Melbourne teaching hospitals over the increasing incidence of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms and inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, led to the establishment of a working party to produce guidelines on appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Therapeutic Guidelines: Antibiotic is now produced, marketed and sold by Therapeutic Guidelines Limited, an independent, not-for-profit enterprise that distils best-practice prescribing guidelines for Australian health professionals. Therapeutic Guidelines now cover all major therapeutic areas. Mere distribution of the guidelines had little impact on prescribing habits. However, targeted education campaigns have helped to improve antibiotic prescribing. The Antibiotic title remains the flagship of Therapeutic Guidelines Limited with sales, surveys and endorsements over 11 editions attesting to its wide acceptance and use. Therapeutic Guidelines: Antibiotic is one of many initiatives that have contributed to improving antibiotic use and it serves as a valuable foundation on which to build other strategies. There is demand for a consumer friendly version of the guidelines. In addition, the increasing use of computerised prescribing programs has highlighted the need for electronic guidelines to be closely integrated with decision support software.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗

PubMed1995

Practice guidelines and malpractice litigation: a two-way street.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how practice guidelines are used in malpractice litigation. DESIGN: Review of the open and closed malpractice claims of two medical malpractice insurance companies, and a mailed survey of attorneys who litigate malpractice claims. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Two insurance companies and 960 randomly selected malpractice attorneys. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency and nature of the use of practice guidelines in litigation; understanding and frequency of the use of practice guidelines by attorneys in malpractice cases. RESULTS: 259 claims opened in 1990-1992 at two insurance companies, including all obstetrics and anesthesia claims and a random sample of other claims, were reviewed. Seventeen of these claims involved practice guidelines, which were used as exculpatory evidence (exonerating the defendant physician) in 4 cases and as inculpatory evidence (implicating the defendant physician) in 12 cases. The only physician or patient factors associated with use of a guideline was a longer physician-patient relationship (P = 0.021). Nine hundred and sixty surveys were mailed and 578 were returned (response rate, 60.1%). Attorneys reported that once a suit is initiated, practice guidelines are likely to be used for inculpatory purposes (inculpatory in 54% of cases; exculpatory in 22.7% of cases). However, guidelines that seem to offer exculpatory value induce attorneys not to bring suits. The only attorney factor associated with increased use of guidelines was a practice in which more than 50% of business was in medical malpractice. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines are used both by plaintiffs' and defendants' attorneys in malpractice cases. The emphasis in health reform proposals on guidelines as exculpatory evidence should be carefully considered.

Humans↗

PubMed1997

The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines.

Clinical practice guidelines have been developed to improve the process and outcomes of health care and to optimize resource utilization. By addressing such issues as prevention, diagnosis, and treatment, they can aid in health care decision making at many levels. Several other decision aids are cast in the guideline lexicon, regardless of their focus, formulation, or format; this can foster misunderstanding of the term "guideline." Whether created or adapted locally or nationally, most guidelines are an amalgam of clinical experience, expert opinion, and research evidence. Approaches to practice guideline development vary widely. Given the resources required to identify all relevant primary studies, many guidelines rely on systematic reviews that were either previously published or created de novo by guideline developers. Systematic reviews can aid in guideline development because they involve searching for, selecting, critically appraising, and summarizing the results of primary research. The more rigorous the review methods used and the higher the quality of the primary research that is synthesized, the more evidence-based the practice guideline is likely to be. Summaries of relevant research incorporated into guideline documents can help to keep practitioners up to date with the literature. Systematic reviews have also been published on the dissemination and implementation strategies most likely to change clinician behavior and improve patient outcomes. These can be useful in more effectively translating research evidence into practice.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗

PubMed2000

The role of guidelines in the practice of physician-assisted suicide. University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics Assisted Suicide Consensus Panel.

Oregon has legalized and implemented physician-assisted suicide, while observers argue about the moral import of attempting to formulate guidelines; the utility any set of guidelines can have for physician practice, health care providers, patients, or families; and whether guidelines can really protect against harm or abuse. What were once theoretical questions have taken on new urgency. The debate over the value and power of guidelines includes the following questions: What has been the experience of efforts to implement physician-assisted suicide using consensus guidelines? What goals are guidelines intended to serve? Who should formulate guidelines? What features should be reflected in any proposed guidelines to make them practical and to permit achievement of their goals? Are there any fundamental obstacles to the creation or implementation of guidelines? Is dying a process that is amenable to direction under guidelines, be they issued by physicians, departments of health, blue ribbon panels, or other regulatory bodies? This paper explores these questions as physician-assisted suicide becomes legal.

Humans↗

PubMedDate not supplied

The challenges of automating a real-time clinical practice guideline.

OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the types of problems encountered during implementation of a World Wide Web-based clinical practice guideline to manage hyperbilirubinemia in newborn infants. DESIGN: Formative assessment of an automated clinical-practice guideline in a large-scale implementation. SETTING: Primary-care clinics and offices, inpatient clinics, and emergency department affiliated with an academic children's hospital. PARTICIPANTS: General pediatricians, neonatologists, pediatric nurses, and computer scientists. RESULTS: Existing guidelines for hyperbilirubinemia management could not be translated directly into web pages. Modifications of the original guidelines were required to represent the clinical intent of the guidelines accurately. In addition, the automated guideline was augmented to incorporate a mechanism for generating clinical encounter forms in order for the system to be accepted into the clinical work flow. Other clinical considerations that influenced the final form of the automated guideline included limitations of computer resources and time constraints during patient encounters. CONCLUSIONS: Many existing guidelines are not amenable to straightforward implementation in automated systems. Strategies to increase the efficacy of the automated guidelines included guideline modifications, as well as careful consideration of the flow of clinical work. Repeated cycles of development and pilot testing are needed to design methods to accommodate the constraints imposed by clinical use.

Boston↗