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

iCareTrack: measuring the appropriateness of eyecare delivery in Australia

Purpose: To meet the needs of an ageing population and optimise health expenditure, delivery of care should be based on evidence. However, the level of evidence-based care delivered to patients with eye conditions is rarely assessed. This study thus aimed to determine the percentage of eyecare encounters at which a sample of adult Australians received appropriate care (i.e., eyecare in line with evidence-based or consensus-based guidelines). Methods: A cross-sectional retrospective review of optometry practice records was conducted using random stratified (by state) sampling in mainland Australia. Eighty-five clinical indicators were developed from evidence-based clinical practice guideline recommendations and refined by panels of experts using a modified Delphi process. Healthcare records of patients 18 years and over were examined against these indicators, representing appropriate care for three common eye conditions (preventative eyecare, glaucoma, and diabetic eyecare). Encounters occurred in optometry practices that were selected to be representative of the socioeconomic profile of Australian practices. The primary outcome measure was percentage compliance of eyecare delivery against the clinical indicators. Results: From 426 optometry practices contacted by mail or telephone, 90 (21%) replied, 46 proved eligible and 42 were included in the study and visited for data collection. From these 1260 patient records were reviewed. Appropriate eyecare was received by Australian patients at an average of 71% (95%CI 70%, 73%) of eligible encounters. The percentage of appropriateness of eyecare at the condition level for preventative, glaucoma and diabetic eyecare was 81% (95%CI 79%, 83%), 63% (95%CI 61%, 64%), and 69% (95%CI 66%, 73%), respectively. Appropriateness of eyecare delivery was lowest for the domains of history taking and physical examination for all eye conditions. Conclusions: There were pockets of excellence but consistent delivery of appropriate eyecare needs improvement, and gaps in eyecare delivery should be addressed.</p