Maternal and perinatal guideline development in hospitals in South East Asia: the experience of the SEA-ORCHID project

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are commonly used to support practitioners to improve practice. However many studies have raised concerns about guideline quality. The reasons why guidelines are not developed following the established development methods are not clear.</p> <p>The SEA-ORCHID project aims to increase the generation and use of locally relevant research and improve clinical practice in maternal and perinatal care in four countries in South East Asia. Baseline data highlighted that development of evidence-based CPGs according to recommended processes was very rare in the SEA-ORCHID hospitals. The project investigators suggested that there were aspects of the recommended development process that made it very difficult in the participating hospitals.</p> <p>We therefore aimed to explore the experience of guideline development and particularly the enablers of and barriers to developing evidence-based guidelines in the nine hospitals in South East Asia participating in the SEA-ORCHID project, so as to better understand how evidence-based guideline development could be facilitated in these settings.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were undertaken with senior and junior healthcare providers (nurses, midwives, doctors) from the maternal and neonatal services at each of the nine participating hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis undertaken.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seventy-five individual, 25 pair and eleven group interviews were conducted. Participants clearly valued evidence-based guidelines. However they also identified several major barriers to guideline development including time, lack of awareness of process, difficulties searching for evidence and arranging guideline development group meetings, issues with achieving multi-disciplinarity and consumer involvement. They also highlighted the central importance of keeping guidelines up-to-date.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Healthcare providers in the SEA-ORCHID hospitals face a series of barriers to developing evidence-based guidelines. At present, in many hospitals, several of these barriers are insurmountable, and as a result, rigorous, evidence-based guidelines are not being developed. Given the acknowledged benefits of evidence-based guidelines, perhaps a new approach to supporting their development in these contexts is needed.</p

Development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs): comparing approaches

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>While the potential of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to support implementation of evidence has been demonstrated, it is not currently being achieved. CPGs are both poorly developed and ineffectively implemented. To improve clinical practice and health outcomes, both well-developed CPGs and effective methods of CPG implementation are needed. We sought to establish whether there is agreement on the fundamental characteristics of an evidence-based CPG development process and to explore whether the level of guidance provided in CPG development handbooks is sufficient for people using these handbooks to be able to apply it.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>CPG development handbooks were identified through a broad search of published and grey literature. Documents published in English produced by national or international organisations purporting to support development of evidence-based CPGs were included. A list of 14 key elements of a CPG development process was developed. Two authors read each handbook. For each handbook a judgement was made as to how it addressed each element; assigned as: 'mentioned and clear guidance provided', 'mentioned but limited practical detail provided ', or 'not mentioned'.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Six CPG development handbooks were included. These were produced by the Council of Europe, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the UK, the New Zealand Guidelines Group, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network, and the World Health Organization (WHO).</p> <p>There was strong concordance between the handbooks on the key elements of an evidence-based CPG development process. All six of the handbooks require and provide guidance on establishment of a multidisciplinary guideline development group, involvement of consumers, identification of clinical questions or problems, systematic searches for and appraisal of research evidence, a process for drafting recommendations, consultation with others beyond the guideline development group, and ongoing review and updating of the CPG.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The key elements of an evidence-based CPG development process are addressed with strong concordance by existing CPG development handbooks. Further research is required to determine why these key elements are often not addressed by CPG developers.</p

Usability evaluation of a clinical decision support tool for osteoporosis disease management

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Osteoporosis affects over 200 million people worldwide at a high cost to healthcare systems. Although guidelines are available, patients are not receiving appropriate diagnostic testing or treatment. Findings from a systematic review of osteoporosis interventions and a series of focus groups were used to develop a functional multifaceted tool that can support clinical decision-making in osteoporosis disease management at the point of care. The objective of our study was to assess how well the prototype met functional goals and usability needs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a usability study for each component of the tool--the Best Practice Recommendation Prompt (BestPROMPT), the Risk Assessment Questionnaire (RAQ), and the Customised Osteoporosis Education (COPE) sheet--using the framework described by Kushniruk and Patel. All studies consisted of one-on-one sessions with a moderator using a standardised worksheet. Sessions were audio- and video-taped and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis consisted of a combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In study 1, physicians liked that the BestPROMPT can provide customised recommendations based on risk factors identified from the RAQ. Barriers included lack of time to use the tool, the need to alter clinic workflow to enable point-of-care use, and that the tool may disrupt the real reason for the visit. In study 2, patients completed the RAQ in a mean of 6 minutes, 35 seconds. Of the 42 critical incidents, 60% were navigational and most occurred when the first nine participants were using the stylus pen; no critical incidents were observed with the last six participants that used the touch screen. Patients thought that the RAQ questions were easy to read and understand, but they found it difficult to initiate the questionnaire. Suggestions for improvement included improving aspects of the interface and navigation. The results of study 3 showed that most patients were able to understand and describe sections of the COPE sheet, and all considered discussing the information with their physicians. Suggestions for improvement included simplifying the language and improving the layout.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Findings from the three studies informed changes to the tool and confirmed the importance of usability testing on all end users to reduce errors, and as an important step in the development process of knowledge translation interventions.</p

Do computerised clinical decision support systems for prescribing change practice? A systematic review of the literature (1990-2007)

Computerised clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are used widely to improve quality of care and patient outcomes. This systematic review evaluated the impact of CDSSs in targeting specific aspects of prescribing, namely initiating, monitoring and stopping therapy. We also examined the influence of clinical setting (institutional vs ambulatory care), system- or user-initiation of CDSS, multi-faceted vs stand alone CDSS interventions and clinical target on practice changes in line with the intent of the CDSS. We searched Medline, Embase and PsychINFO for publications from 1990-2007 detailing CDSS prescribing interventions. Pairs of independent reviewers extracted the key features and prescribing outcomes of methodologically adequate studies (experiments and strong quasi-experiments). 56 studies met our inclusion criteria, 38 addressing initiating, 23 monitoring and three stopping therapy. At the time of initiating therapy, CDSSs appear to be somewhat more effective after, rather than before, drug selection has occurred (7/12 versus 12/26 studies reporting statistically significant improvements in favour of CDSSs on = 50% of prescribing outcomes reported). CDSSs also appeared to be effective for monitoring therapy, particularly using laboratory test reminders (4/7 studies reporting significant improvements in favour of CDSSs on the majority of prescribing outcomes). None of the studies addressing stopping therapy demonstrated impacts in favour of CDSSs over comparators. The most consistently effective approaches used system-initiated advice to fine-tune existing therapy by making recommendations to improve patient safety, adjust the dose, duration or form of prescribed drugs or increase the laboratory testing rates for patients on long-term therapy. CDSSs appeared to perform better in institutional compared to ambulatory settings and when decision support was initiated automatically by the system as opposed to user initiation. CDSSs implemented with other strategies such as education were no more successful in improving prescribing than stand alone interventions. Cardiovascular disease was the most studied clinical target but few studies demonstrated significant improvements on the majority of prescribing outcomes. Our understanding of CDSS impacts on specific aspects of the prescribing process remains relatively limited. Future implementation should build on effective approaches including the use of system-initiated advice to address safety issues and improve the monitoring of therapy

Diagnostic tools in Rhinology EAACI position paper

This EAACI Task Force document aims at providing the readers with a comprehensive and complete overview of the currently available tools for diagnosis of nasal and sino-nasal disease. We have tried to logically order the different important issues related to history taking, clinical examination and additional investigative tools for evaluation of the severity of sinonasal disease into a consensus document. A panel of European experts in the field of Rhinology has contributed to this consensus document on Diagnostic Tools in Rhinology