Guidance on guidelines: Understanding the evidence on the uptake of health care guidelines

Rationale Regardless of health issue, health sector, patient condition, or treatment modality, the chances are that provision is supported by “a guideline” making professionally endorsed recommendations on best practice. Against this background, research has proliferated seeking to evaluate how effectively such guidance is followed. These investigations paint a gloomy picture with many a guideline prompting lip service, inattention, and even opposition. This predicament has prompted a further literature on how to improve the uptake of guidelines, and this paper considers how to draw together lessons from these inquiries. Methods This huge body of material presents a considerable challenge for research synthesis, and this paper produces a critical, methodological comparison of 2 types of review attempting to meet that task. Firstly, it provides an overview of the current orthodoxy, namely, “thematic reviews,” which aggregate and enumerate the “barriers and facilitators” to guideline implementation. It then outlines a “realist synthesis,” focussing on testing the “programme theories” that practitioners have devised to improve guideline uptake. Results Thematic reviews aim to provide a definitive, comprehensive catalogue of the facilitators and barriers to guideline implementation. As such, they present a restatement of the underlying problems rather than an improvement strategy. The realist approach assumes that the incorporation of any guideline into current practice will produce unintended system strains as different stakeholders wrestle over responsibilities. These distortions will prompt supplementary revisions to guidelines, which in turn beget further strains. Realist reviews follow this dynamic understanding of organisational change. Conclusions Health care decision makers operate in systems that are awash with guidelines. But guidelines only have paper authority. Managers do not need a checklist of their pros and cons, because the fate of guidelines depends on their reception rather than their production. They do need decision support on how to engineer and reengineer guidelines so they dovetail with evolving systems of health care delivery

FORM: An Australian method for formulating and grading recommendations in evidence-based clinical guidelines

Extent: 8p.BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are an important element of evidence-based practice. Considering an often complicated body of evidence can be problematic for guideline developers, who in the past may have resorted to using levels of evidence of individual studies as a quasi-indicator for the strength of a recommendation. This paper reports on the production and trial of a methodology and associated processes to assist Australian guideline developers in considering a body of evidence and grading the resulting guideline recommendations. METHODS: In recognition of the complexities of clinical guidelines and the multiple factors that influence choice in health care, a working group of experienced guideline consultants was formed under the auspices of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to produce and pilot a framework to formulate and grade guideline recommendations. Consultation with national and international experts and extensive piloting informed the process. RESULTS: The FORM framework consists of five components (evidence base, consistency, clinical impact, generalisability and applicability) which are used by guideline developers to structure their decisions on how to convey the strength of a recommendation through wording and grading via a considered judgement form. In parallel (but separate from the grading process) guideline developers are asked to consider implementation implications for each recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The framework has now been widely adopted by Australian guideline developers who find it to be a logical and intuitive way to formulate and grade recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.Susan Hillier, Karen Grimmer-Somers, Tracy Merlin, Philippa Middleton, Janet Salisbury, Rebecca Tooher and Adele Westo

Differential Effects of Comorbidity on Antihypertensive and Glucose-Regulating Treatment in Diabetes Mellitus – A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Comorbidity is often mentioned as interfering with "optimal" treatment decisions in diabetes care. It is suggested that diabetes- related comorbidity will increase adequate treatment, whereas diabetes- unrelated comorbidity may decrease this process of care. We hypothesized that these effects differ according to expected priority of the conditions. METHODS: We evaluated the relationship between comorbidity and treatment intensification in a study of 11,248 type 2 diabetes patients using the GIANTT (Groningen Initiative to Analyse type 2 diabetes Treatment) database. We formed a cohort of patients with a systolic blood pressure >/= 140 mmHg (6,820 hypertensive diabetics), and a cohort of patients with an HbA1c >/= 7% (3,589 hyperglycemic diabetics) in 2007. We differentiated comorbidity by diabetes-related or unrelated conditions and by priority. High priority conditions include conditions that are life- interfering, incident or requiring new medication treatment. We performed Cox regression analyses to assess association with treatment intensification, defined as dose increase, start, or addition of drugs. RESULTS: In both the hypertensive and hyperglycemic cohort, only patients with incident diabetes-related comorbidity had a higher chance of treatment intensification (HR 4.48, 2.33-8.62 (p<0.001) for hypertensives; HR 2.37, 1.09-5.17 (p = 0.030) for hyperglycemics). Intensification of hypertension treatment was less likely when a new glucose-regulating drug was prescribed (HR 0.24, 0.06-0.97 (p = 0.046)). None of the prevalent or unrelated comorbidity was significantly associated with treatment intensification. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes-related comorbidity induced better risk factor treatment only for incident cases, implying that appropriate care is provided more often when complications occur. Diabetes- unrelated comorbidity did not affect hypertension or hyperglycemia management, even when it was incident or life-interfering. Thus, the observed "undertreatment" in diabetes care cannot be explained by constraints caused by such comorbidity

Canadian guidelines for clinical practice: an analysis of their quality and relevance to the care of adults with comorbidity

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical guidelines have been the subject of much criticism in primary care literature partly due to potential conflicts in their implementation among patients with multiple chronic conditions. We assessed the relevance of selected Canadian clinical guidelines on chronic diseases for patients with comorbidity and examined their quality.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We selected 16 chronic medical conditions according to their frequency of occurrence, complexity of treatment, and pertinence to primary care. Recent Canadian clinical guidelines (2004 - 2009) on these conditions, published in English or French, were retrieved. We assessed guideline relevance to the care of patients with comorbidity with a tool developed by Boyd and colleagues. Quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Regarding relevance, 56.2% of guidelines addressed treatment for patients with multiple chronic conditions and 18.8% addressed the issue for older patients. Fifteen guidelines (93.8%) included specific recommendations for patients with one concurrent condition; only three guidelines (18.8%) addressed specific recommendations for patients with two comorbid conditions and one for more than two concurrent comorbid conditions. Quality of the evaluated guidelines was good to very good in four out of the six domains measured using the AGREE instrument. The domains with lower mean scores were Stakeholder Involvement and Applicability.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The quality of the Canadian guidelines examined is generally good, yet their relevance for patients with two or more chronic conditions is very limited and there is room for improvement in this respect.</p

Photosynthetic growth despite a broken Q-cycle

Central in respiration or photosynthesis, the cytochrome bc1 and b6f complexes are regarded as functionally similar quinol oxidoreductases. They both catalyse a redox loop, the Q-cycle, which couples electron and proton transfer. This loop involves a bifurcated electron transfer step considered as being mechanistically mandatory, making the Q-cycle indispensable for growth. Attempts to falsify this paradigm in the case of cytochrome bc1 have failed. The rapid proteolytic degradation of b6f complexes bearing mutations aimed at hindering the Q-cycle has precluded so far the experimental assessment of this model in the photosynthetic chain. Here we combine mutations in Chlamydomonas that inactivate the redox loop but preserve high accumulation levels of b6f complexes. The oxidoreductase activity of these crippled complexes is sufficient to sustain photosynthetic growth, which demonstrates that the Q-cycle is dispensable for oxygenic photosynthesis

Comorbidity and dementia: a scoping review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that amongst people with dementia there is a high prevalence of comorbid medical conditions and related complaints. The presence of dementia may complicate clinical care for other conditions and undermine a patient's ability to manage a chronic condition. The aim of this study was to scope the extent, range and nature of research activity around dementia and comorbidity. METHODS: We undertook a scoping review including all types of research relating to the prevalence of comorbidities in people with dementia; current systems, structures and other issues relating to service organisation and delivery; patient and carer experiences; and the experiences and attitudes of service providers. We searched AMED, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PubMed, NHS Evidence, Scopus, Google Scholar (searched 2012, Pubmed updated 2013), checked reference lists and performed citation searches on PubMed and Google Scholar (ongoing to February 2014). RESULTS: We included 54 primary studies, eight reviews and three guidelines. Much of the available literature relates to the prevalence of comorbidities in people with dementia or issues around quality of care. Less is known about service organisation and delivery or the views and experiences of people with dementia and their family carers. There is some evidence that people with dementia did not have the same access to treatment and monitoring for conditions such as visual impairment and diabetes as those with similar comorbidities but without dementia. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of comorbid conditions in people with dementia is high. Whilst current evidence suggests that people with dementia may have poorer access to services the reasons for this are not clear. There is a need for more research looking at the ways in which having dementia impacts on clinical care for other conditions and how the process of care and different services are adapting to the needs of people with dementia and comorbidity. People with dementia should be included in the debate about the management of comorbidities in older populations and there needs to be greater consideration given to including them in studies that focus on age-related healthcare issues