Adaptation of a difficult to manage asthma programme for implementation in the Dutch context: a modified e-Delphi

Contains fulltext : 177900.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)Patients with difficult-to-manage asthma represent a heterogeneous subgroup of asthma patients who require extensive assessment and tailored management. The International Primary Care Respiratory Group approach emphasises the importance of differentiating patients with asthma that is difficult to manage from those with severe disease. Local adaptation of this approach, however, is required to ensure an appropriate strategy for implementation in the Dutch context. We used a modified three-round e-Delphi approach to assess the opinion of all relevant stakeholders (general practitioners, pulmonologists, practice nurses, pulmonary nurses and people with asthma). In the first round, the participants were asked to provide potentially relevant items for a difficult-to-manage asthma programme, which resulted in 67 items. In the second round, we asked participants to rate the relevance of specific items on a seven-point Likert scale, and 46 items were selected as relevant. In the third round, the selected items were categorised and items were ranked within the categories according to relevance. Finally, we created the alphabet acronym for the categories 'the A-I of difficult-to-manage asthma' to resonate with an established Dutch 'A-E acronym for determining asthma control'. This should facilitate implementation of this programme within the existing structure of educational material on asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in primary care, with potential for improving management of difficult-to-manage asthma. Other countries could use a similar approach to create a locally adapted version of such a programme

Guidelines and Safety Practices for Improving Patient Safety

AbstractThis chapter explains why clinical practice guidelines are needed to improve patient safety and how further research into safety practices can successfully influence the guideline development process. There is a description of the structured process by which guidelines that aim to increase the likelihood of a higher score are created. Proposals are made relating to (a) the live updating of individual guideline recommendations and (b) tackling challenges related to the improvement of guidelines

A Test of Knowledge about Prostate Cancer Screening: Online Pilot Evaluation among Southern California Physicians

BACKGROUND: Although the benefits of prostate cancer screening are uncertain and guidelines recommend that physicians share the screening decision with their patients, most U.S. men over age 50 are routinely screened, often without counseling. OBJECTIVE: To develop an instrument for assessing physicians' knowledge related to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on prostate cancer screening. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy internists, family physicians, and general practitioners in the Los Angeles area who deliver primary care to adult men. MEASUREMENTS: We assessed knowledge related to prostate cancer screening (natural history, test characteristics, treatment effects, and guideline recommendations), beliefs about the net benefits of screening, and prostate cancer screening practices for men in different age groups, using an online survey. We constructed a knowledge scale having 15 multiple-choice items. RESULTS: Participants' mean knowledge score was 7.4 (range 3 to 12) of 15 (Cronbach's α=0.71). Higher knowledge scores were associated with less belief in a mortality benefit from prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing (r=−.49, P <.001). Participants could be categorized as low, age-selective, and high users of routine PSA screening. High users had lower knowledge scores than age-selective or low users, and they believed much more in mortality benefits from PSA screening. CONCLUSIONS: Based on its internal consistency and its correlations with measures of physicians' net beliefs and self-reported practices, the knowledge scale developed in this study holds promise for measuring the effects of professional education on prostate cancer screening. The scale deserves further evaluation in broader populations