Availability and perceived usefulness of guidelines and protocols for subcutaneous hydration in palliative care settings

Aims and objectives: To evaluate the availability of, adherence to, and perceived usefulness of guidelines and protocols for managing hydration and subcutaneous hydration in palliative care settings. Background: Hydration at the end of life and the use of a subcutaneous route to hydrate generate some controversy among health professionals for different reasons. Having guidelines and protocols to assist in decision‐making and to follow a standard procedure may be relevant in clinical practice. Design: Cross‐sectional telephone survey, with closed‐ended and open‐ended questions designed specifically for this study. Methods: Data were obtained from 327 professionals, each from a different palliative care service. Mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum were calculated for continuous variables; frequency distributions were obtained for categorical variables. A qualitative content analysis was performed on the open‐ended questions. The article adheres to the STROBE guidelines for reporting observational studies. Results: Only 24.8% of the participants had guidelines available to assist in making decisions regarding hydration, and 55.6% claimed to follow them ‘always or almost always’. Of the participants, 38.8% had subcutaneous hydration protocols available, while 78.7% stated that they ‘always or almost always’ followed these protocols. The remaining participants considered the protocols as useful tools despite not having them available. Conclusions: Only 25% of the participants' services had guidelines for hydration, and less than 40% had protocols for subcutaneous hydration. However, adherence was high, especially in cases where protocols existed. Among the participants who did not have guidelines and protocols, attitudes were mostly favourable, but mainly as a reference and support for an individualised clinical practice. Relevance to clinical practice: Guidelines and protocols on hydration in palliative care may be more useful as a solid reference and support for individualised practice than as instruments for standardising care. From this perspective, their development and availability in palliative care services are recommended.This study has been funded by a grant from the Institute of Health Carlos III (PI10/00847) of the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Spain) and the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER)

A randomized trial to evaluate e-learning interventions designed to improve learner's performance, satisfaction, and self-efficacy with the AGREE II

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Practice guidelines (PGs) are systematically developed statements intended to assist in patient, practitioner, and policy decisions. The AGREE II is the revised and updated standard tool for guideline development, reporting and evaluation. It is comprised of 23 items and a user's Manual. The AGREE II is ready for use.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>To develop, execute, and evaluate the impact of two internet-based educational interventions designed to accelerate the capacity of stakeholders to use the AGREE II: a multimedia didactic tutorial with a virtual coach, and a higher intensity training program including both the didactic tutorial and an interactive practice exercise component.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants (clinicians, developers, and policy makers) will be randomly assigned to one of three conditions. <it>Condition one, didactic tutorial </it>-- participants will go through the on-line AGREE II tutorial supported by a virtual coach and review of the AGREE II prior to appraising the test PG. <it>Condition two, tutorial + practice </it>-- following the multimedia didactic tutorial with a virtual coach, participants will review the on-line AGREE II independently and use it to appraise a practice PG. Upon entering their AGREE II score for the practice PG, participants will be given immediate feedback on how their score compares to expert norms. If their score falls outside a predefined range, the participant will receive a series of hints to guide the appraisal process. Participants will receive an overall summary of their performance appraising the PG compared to expert norms. <it>Condition three, control arm </it>-- participants will receive a PDF copy of the AGREE II for review and to appraise the test PG on-line. All participants will then rate one of ten test PGs with the AGREE II. The outcomes of interest are learners' performance, satisfaction, self-efficacy, mental effort, and time-on-task; comparisons will be made across each of the test groups.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Our research will test innovative educational interventions of various intensities and instructional design to promote the adoption of AGREE II and to identify those strategies that are most effective for training. The results will facilitate international capacity to apply the AGREE II accurately and with confidence and to enhance the overall guideline enterprise.</p

E-learning interventions are comparable to user's manual in a randomized trial of training strategies for the AGREE II

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Practice guidelines (PGs) are systematically developed statements intended to assist in patient and practitioner decisions. The AGREE II is the revised tool for PG development, reporting, and evaluation, comprised of 23 items, two global rating scores, and a new User's Manual. In this study, we sought to develop, execute, and evaluate the impact of two internet interventions designed to accelerate the capacity of stakeholders to use the AGREE II.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants were randomized to one of three training conditions. 'Tutorial'--participants proceeded through the online tutorial with a virtual coach and reviewed a PDF copy of the AGREE II. 'Tutorial + Practice Exercise'--in addition to the Tutorial, participants also appraised a 'practice' PG. For the practice PG appraisal, participants received feedback on how their scores compared to expert norms and formative feedback if scores fell outside the predefined range. <it>'</it>AGREE II User's Manual PDF (control condition)'<it>--</it>participants reviewed a PDF copy of the AGREE II only. All participants evaluated a test PG using the AGREE II. Outcomes of interest were learners' performance, satisfaction, self-efficacy, mental effort, time-on-task, and perceptions of AGREE II.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>No differences emerged between training conditions on any of the outcome measures.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We believe these results can be explained by better than anticipated performance of the AGREE II PDF materials (control condition) or the participants' level of health methodology and PG experience rather than the failure of the online training interventions. Some data suggest the online tools may be useful for trainees new to this field; however, this requires further study.</p

Clinicians' evaluations of, endorsements of, and intentions to use practice guidelines change over time: a retrospective analysis from an organized guideline program

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Purpose</p> <p>Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can improve clinical care but uptake and application are inconsistent. Objectives were: to examine temporal trends in clinicians' evaluations of, endorsements of, and intentions to use cancer CPGs developed by an established CPG program; and to evaluate how predictor variables (clinician characteristics, beliefs, and attitudes) are associated with these trends.</p> <p>Design and methods</p> <p>Between 1999 and 2005, 756 clinicians evaluated 84 Cancer Care Ontario CPGs, yielding 4,091 surveys that targeted four CPG quality domains (rigour, applicability, acceptability, and comparative value), clinicians' endorsement levels, and clinicians' intentions to use CPGs in practice.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Time: In contrast to the applicability and intention to use in practice scores, there were small but statistically significant annual net gains in ratings for rigour, acceptability, comparative value, and CPG endorsement measures (p < 0.05 for all rating categories). Predictors: In 17 comparisons, ratings were significantly higher among clinicians having the most favourable beliefs and most positive attitudes and lowest for those having the least favourable beliefs and most negative attitudes (p < 0.05). Interactions Time × Predictors: Over time, differences in outcomes among clinicians decreased due to positive net gains in scores by clinicians whose beliefs and attitudes were least favorable.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Individual differences among clinicians largely explain variances in outcomes measured. Continued engagement of clinicians least receptive to CPGs may be worthwhile because they are the ones showing most significant gains in CPG quality ratings, endorsement ratings, and intentions to use in practice ratings.</p