The Urological Association of Asia clinical guideline for urinary stone disease

The Urological Association of Asia, consisting of 25 member associations and one affiliated member since its foundation in 1990, has planned to develop Asian guidelines for all urological fields. The field of stone diseases is the third of its guideline projects. Because of the different climates, and social, economic and ethnic environments, the clinical practice for urinary stone diseases widely varies among the Asian countries. The committee members of the Urological Association of Asia on the clinical guidelines for urinary stone disease carried out a surveillance study to better understand the diversity of the treatment strategy among different regions and subsequent systematic literature review through PubMed and MEDLINE database between 1966 and 2017. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation for each management were decided according to the relevant strategy. Each clinical question and answer were thoroughly reviewed and discussed by all committee members and their colleagues, with suggestions from expert representatives of the American Urological Association and European Association of Urology. However, we focused on the pragmatic care of patients and our own evidence throughout Asia, which included recent surgical trends, such as miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy and endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery. This guideline covers all fields of stone diseases, from etiology to recurrence prevention. Here, we present a short summary of the first version of the guideline – consisting 43 clinical questions – and overview its key practical issues

Evaluation frameworks in health services: an integrative review of use, attributes and elements

To synthesise the evidence on the use of evaluation frameworks by nurses and midwives in research designed to improve healthcare services and practice. A secondary aim was to identify the attributes and elements of evaluation frameworks.Evaluation is an integral component of any initiative to improve outcomes or change clinical practice. Yet often an evaluation may not yield the information required to sustain or integrate an initiative into practice. Evaluation frameworks can support effective evaluations, but there is a lack of consensus regarding elements and attributes of frameworks that support use.We undertook an integrative review to synthesise the use of evaluation frameworks in practice guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis flow diagram and checklist 2009 (Supporting Information File 4). The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018087033). A broad range of electronic databases were systematically searched using keywords.Twenty-five papers were included from a diverse range of clinical areas and across high-, middle- and low-income nations. Twenty of the research projects had used nine existing frameworks, and five had developed an evaluation specific to an initiative. Frameworks supported the processes of evaluation and made them more meaningful by simplifying a complex process (providing structure and guidance for the evaluation processes); identifying and including stakeholders; explaining reasons for outcomes; generating transferable lessons; and identifying the mechanisms driving or inhibiting change.Nurses and midwives reported that frameworks were useful in undertaking evaluations. Each framework had positive attributes and missing or confusing elements. When undertaking an evaluation, it is pertinent to review the elements and attributes of a framework to ensure it includes evaluation measures that are relevant to specific projects.Nurses are actively involved in evaluation of clinical practice. This review identifies important elements to consider when choosing a framework for evaluation