SEARCH · PubMed Health
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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: To ensure implementation, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research's (AHCPR) Guideline for the Treatment of Depression in Primary Care was recently translated into a local document by a large health maintenance organization (HMO). The guideline revision process was studied on the basis of interviews with members of the guideline revision committee and others, observation of meetings, and documents and correspondence. WHY THE GUIDELINE WAS CHANGED: The HMO changed the AHCPR guideline for reasons of convenience, credibility, audience, purpose, and context. For example, in their roles as representative consumers, committee members perceived that the AHCPR guideline, although addressed to primary care clinicians, was actually written from a psychiatric perspective and based on a psychiatric literature not relevant to primary care. COMPARISON OF THE GUIDELINES: Although the guidelines differ dramatically in length and format, coverage, emphasis, and organizing principle, substantive conflict between the two guidelines' recommendations is minimal. For example, the emphasis on medication is greater in the adaptation, which adds considerable original material of a practical nature on drugs and drug use. In addition, the original guideline has a "research literature orientation." In contrast, the adaptation is described as "clinical decision oriented", identifying the key actions and decisions that a practicing clinician must make to treat depression. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION: Translation of science-oriented national guidelines into user-oriented documents tailored to local audiences and settings can add great value to the guideline development process without sacrificing science-derived integrity-and is probably essential to successful implementation.
OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of high-quality clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: A total of 86 guidelines from 11 countries were assessed by four independent appraisers per guideline using the AGREE instrument (23 items). Six aspects of guideline development were considered to explain the variation in quality scores: care level (primary/secondary care), scope (diagnosis/treatment), type of guideline (new/update), year of publication, type of agency (governmental/professional), and whether the guideline was produced within a structured and coordinated program. RESULTS: Guidelines produced within a guideline program and by governmental agencies had higher scores than their counterparts. Differences in the applicability of the guidelines could not be explained by the variables studied. CONCLUSION: To ensure high quality, clinical guidelines should be produced within a structured and coordinated program. Professional organizations or specialist societies that aim to develop guidelines may adopt quality criteria from leading guideline agencies.
OBJECTIVES: To develop a model for using routine data monitoring in the evaluation of clinical guideline usage in primary healthcare settings. DESIGN: A monitoring framework was developed following a number of semistructured interviews with potential users. These data informed a postal survey among a random sample of primary healthcare professionals. Then to test out the framework, a further semistructured interview study was used to explore the practical issues relating to monitoring guideline use. Case studies were then undertaken to investigate the use of evidence-based review criteria and patient-centred outcome measures as methods for providing monitoring information. A case study in one general practice used interviews to examine the possible costs associated with guideline-use monitoring. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Interviews were undertaken with primary care professionals from one local health community. The postal survey was undertaken among staff from a purposive sample of Health Authorities in England and a random sample of general practitioners and practice nurses from the selected Health Authority areas. The second phase involved interviews with Health Authority, Primary Care Group and general practice staff from three Health Authority areas. Case studies were undertaken in volunteer general practices and among patients who consented to provide confidential health outcome information. RESULTS: Interviewees recognised some value in guideline-use monitoring, however they were concerned about the practicalities from two perspectives. First, although primary care computing systems were to be found in most general practices, the technology for monitoring was absent in many practices. Training in these skills would be required before monitoring of guideline use could be a practical reality. Second, there were clear signals of a more general lack of interest or awareness in the subject of continuous review of care. This, together with a feeling of being overloaded with new initiatives, meant that implementation of a monitoring framework could be problematic and might need considerable support in order to make progress. CONCLUSIONS: Effective methods can be developed for monitoring guideline use in primary care. However there is a need to address the degree of understanding that many primary healthcare professionals have of the concepts and practical issues in the area of guideline-use monitoring, and of expectations of this within the NHS. In addition there are a number of technical issues concerned with efficient capture of clinical information and its evaluation. Further research is recommended in the following areas: the extent to which patient concordance with the guideline recommendations be taken into account in the assessment of clinician conformance with guideline recommendations; the costs and benefits to patient care of guideline-use monitoring; the most efficient methods of developing valid and reliable review criteria which are policy and evidence (guidelines) based; whether review criteria are more useful than guidelines in improving quality of care; what additional benefits to patient care can offered by monitoring patient-centred health outcomes in addition to process of care, and at what cost?
As medical technology increases rapidly and becomes more complex, clinical practice guidelines can help healthcare providers assess current practices and integrate technological advances. Through the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR), the federal government has begun to facilitate the development of clinical practice guidelines. Expert or contract panels, authorized by the AHCPR, develop guidelines on specific clinical conditions. The AHCPR guideline methodology is designed to produce evidence-based guidelines that are valid, clinically applicable, and clinically flexible. Each panel spends a year or more developing the guideline, beginning with an extensive literature search and review. The panel prepares evidence tables, statistically analyzes aggregate data (where appropriate), conducts harm and benefit analyses, and prepares health policy analyses (or cost-impact studies). During this process, the panel holds an open forum to solicit comments on the guideline topic. After this public discussion, the panel prepares a final draft of the guideline. Several hundred individuals review the guideline. Some policymakers believe clinical practice guidelines can lead to better healthcare outcomes. Guidelines can provide information in a useful format for clinicians to use at the bedside or the point of decision making in patient care. Guidelines also provide information that can be used in continuing education and professional education programs.
Medical decision making is one of the most difficult daily tasks for physicians. Guidelines have been designed to reduce variance between physicians in daily practice, to improve patient outcomes and to control costs. In fact, few physicians use guidelines in daily practice. A way to ease the use of guidelines is to implement computerised guidelines (computer reminders). We present in this paper a method of computerising guidelines. Our objectives were: 1) to propose a generic model that can be instantiated for any specific guidelines; 2) to use eXtensible Markup Language (XML) as a guideline representation language to instantiate the generic model for a specific guideline. Our model is an object representation of a clinical algorithm, it has been validated by running two different guidelines issued by a French official Agency. In spite of some limitations, we found that this model is expressive enough to represent complex guidelines devoted to diabetes and hypertension management. We conclude that XML can be used as a description format to structure guidelines and as an interface between paper-based guidelines and computer applications.
BACKGROUND: Clinicians in general have not widely and consistently used asthma guidelines in their practices around the world. This study identifies reasons for the poor adherence to asthma guidelines by primary care physicians (PCPs), and simultaneously introduces multicolored simplified asthma guideline reminder (MSAGR) as a practical tool to enhance adherence to asthma guidelines. METHODS: Sixty-nine PCPs were given a simple, one-page, fill-in-the-blank questionnaire on the classification of asthma severity as defined in National Asthma Education and Prevention Program guidelines, using patients' symptoms, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR)/forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) value, PEFR variability, and step therapy based on asthma severity. Also, they were given a questionnaire on barriers to using asthma guidelines and MSAGR for evaluation. In one targeted community, free copies of MSAGR were made available to PCPs, and data on emergency room visits and hospitalization of asthmatic patients were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the PCPs, 16% correctly classified mild, intermittent asthma, 13% mild, persistent asthma, 8% moderate, persistent asthma, and 8% severe, persistent asthma based on the combined patient's symptoms, PEFR or FEV1 value and PEFR variability as defined in National Asthma Education and Prevention Program guidelines. One hundred percent of the PCPs chose inhaled beta2-agonists as quick relief medication. Fifty percent of the PCPs chose inhaled steroids, leukotriene antagonists, oral theophylline, and long acting beta-agonists in various combinations for different severity of asthma. Eighty percent of the physicians failed to select the appropriate dosages of inhaled steroids for different severities of asthma. Ninety-five percent of PCPs reported that MSAGR made using the guidelines easier for them. In the targeted community, asthma-related emergency room visits decreased 22.5% and hospitalizations by 26.9%. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study that identified the reasons for poor adherence to asthma guidelines by PCPs, and introduced MSAGR as a practical "low-tech" tool to promote better adherence to asthma guidelines. MSAGR presents patient-specific recommendations, based on asthma guidelines in a user-friendly format that can save the physician time in real-world primary care settings, where such information is often needed instantly. The overwhelming majority of PCPs strongly agreed that MSAGR helped them recall the classification of asthma severity in a timely manner, to inquire about various triggers, and to use step therapy accurately and confidently. In one targeted community, MSAGR helped clinicians in primary care settings to achieve better asthma outcomes and to reduce both emergency room visits and hospitalizations.
This paper describes the development of the clinical practice guideline on schizophrenia from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and outlines its main recommendations. It reviews the evidence on effective implementation of guidelines generally and examines issues specific to the schizophrenia guideline. It describes NICE's approach to supporting implementation alongside that developed by the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH) and looks at local implementation examples for schizophrenia. The paper highlights key considerations for the forthcoming revision of the NICE schizophrenia guideline. It makes recommendations concerning the scope of the guideline and the quality and type of data available to the guideline developers: the lack of data on outcomes such as quality of life and social functioning, the challenges presented by unpublished papers and areas where evidence is limited. Since publication of the schizophrenia guideline, the NICE development process has undergone significant methodological improvements. The grading of evidence has been refined and more recently NICE proposed that grading of recommendations be dropped. Consensus methods are increasingly and more effectively used to deal with areas where the evidence-base is limited. NICE and the NCCMH have developed a more implementation-ready range of guideline products. The initial NICE guideline on schizophrenia was positively received nationally and internationally. This paper highlights challenges that will be involved in updating the guideline and ways to refine the methodology of development. Ultimately the impact of the guideline will be measured not in its methodological rigor but in how its successful implementation improves patient care.
BACKGROUND: The National Library for Health offers a comprehensive searchable database of nationally approved clinical guidelines, called the Guidelines Finder. This resource, commissioned in 2002, is managed and developed by the University of Sheffield Health Sciences Library. METHODS: The authors introduce the historical and political dimension of guidelines and the nature of guidelines as a mechanism to ensure clinical effectiveness in practice. The article then outlines the maintenance and organisation of the Guidelines Finder database itself, the criteria for selection, who publishes guidelines and guideline formats, usage of the Guidelines Finder service and finally looks at some lessons learnt from a local library offering a national service. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical guidelines are central to effective clinical practice at the national, organisational and individual level. The Guidelines Finder is one of the most visited resources within the National Library for Health and is successful in answering information needs related to specific patient care, clinical research, guideline development and education.
PURPOSE: To describe the quality of oncology guidelines developed in different countries. METHODS: The Appraisal of Guidelines and Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument was used to assess the quality of 100 guidelines (including 32 oncology guidelines) from 13 countries. The criteria of the instrument are grouped into six quality domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity and presentation, applicability, and editorial independence. RESULTS: Oncology guidelines had significantly higher scores on rigor of development than nononcology guidelines (42.2% v 29.4%; P =.02). In particular, systematic methods to search for evidence were more often used (P =.01); the methods for formulating the recommendations were more clearly described (P =.02); and health benefits, risks, and side effects were more often considered in formulating the recommendations (P =.03). Although the standardized scores for the other domains were not significantly different, the oncology guidelines had significantly higher scores for items measuring inclusion of all relevant professional groups (P =.05), consideration of patient views (P =.04), and presentation of different options (P =.05). Only three organizations producing oncology guidelines had standardized scores more than 60% for more than three domains. CONCLUSION: The quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is modest in general, but for certain domains, oncology guidelines seem to be of better quality than others. The experience of the organization may explain higher scores for some items. Research projects and training aimed at improving the quality of guidelines should be developed. The AGREE instrument could provide a basis for defining steps in a shared development approach to produce high-quality CPGs.
The aim of this paper is to examine health visitors' use of formal guidelines in identifying health needs and prioritizing families requiring extra health visiting support. With the increasing emphasis on targeted health visiting, a case study was used to explore the extent to which health visitors in three case sites use needs assessment guidelines in the assessment of family health need. The findings indicate how the presence of core visiting protocols hints at elements of control by managers, leading to conflicts in the relationship between professional judgements and official guidelines. Despite a management ethos of guideline formulation, several contradictions exist for which these guidelines are a focus. These include: little involvement of health visitors in guideline development, some staff not informed about the existence of formal guidelines, little evidence of guidelines contributing to improved client outcomes and their limited use by many health visitors in practice. Thus, even when guidelines exist, no accurate predictions can be made about health visitors' knowledge of or use of such guidelines in practice.
OBJECTIVE: To compare guidelines on diabetes from different countries in order to examine whether differences in recommendations could be explained by use of different research evidence. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed 15 clinical guidelines on type 2 diabetes from 13 countries using qualitative methods to compare the recommendations and bibliometric methods to measure the extent of overlap in citations used by different guidelines. A further qualitative analysis of recommendations and cited evidence for two specific issues in diabetes care explored the apparent discrepancy between recommendations and evidence. RESULTS: The recommendations made in the guidelines were in agreement about the general management of type 2 diabetes, with some important differences in treatment details. There was little overlap in evidence cited by the guidelines, with 18% (185/1,033) of citations shared with any other guideline, and only 10 studies (1%) appearing in six or more guidelines. The measurable overlap in evidence between guidelines increases if multiple publications from the same study and the use of reviews are taken into account. Research originating from the U.S. predominated (40% of citations); however, nearly all (11/12) guidelines were significantly more likely to cite evidence originating from their own countries. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the variation in cited evidence and preferential citation of evidence from a guideline's country of origin, we found a high degree of international consensus in recommendations made for the clinical care of type 2 diabetes. The influence of professional bodies such as the American Diabetes Association may be an important factor in explaining international consensus. Globalization of recommended management of diabetes is not a simple consequence of the globalization of research evidence.
Clinical guidelines are a major tool in improving the quality of medical care. However, most guidelines are in free text, not in a formal, executable format, and are not easily accessible to clinicians at the point of care. We introduce a Web-based, modular, distributed architecture, the Digital Electronic Guideline Library (DeGeL), which facilitates gradual conversion of clinical guidelines from text to a formal representation in chosen target guideline ontology. The architecture supports guideline classification, semantic markup, context-sensitive search, browsing, run-time application, and retrospective quality assessment. The DeGeL hybrid meta-ontology includes elements common to all guideline ontologies, such as semantic classification and domain knowledge; it also includes four content-representation formats: free text, semi-structured text, semi-formal representation, and a formal representation. These formats support increasingly sophisticated computational tasks. The DeGeL tools for support of guideline-based care operate, at some level, on all guideline ontologies. We have demonstrated the feasibility of the architecture and the tools for several guideline ontologies, including Asbru and GEM.