Do not attempt resuscitation decisions in a cancer centre: addressing difficult ethical and communication issues

Talking to patients about ‘Do Not Attempt Resuscitation’ decisions is difficult for many doctors. Communication about ‘Do Not Attempt Resuscitation’ decisions should occur as part of a wider discussion of treatment goals at an earlier stage in the patient's illness. A doctor should not initiate any treatment, including cardio-pulmonary resuscitation if he/she does not believe it will benefit the patient. An ethical framework is offered which may be of practical help in clarifying decision-making

Recommended age groups and frequency of mammography screening : a systematic review

Esta revisão teve por objetivo avaliar a força de evidência do atual indicador de desempenho português relativo ao rastreio do Câncer da Mama através da mamografia, de modo a determinar o grupo etário e a periodicidade recomendadas. Foram pesquisados artigos nas principais bases de dados internacionais de literatura médica. Incluímos artigos publicados entre Janeiro de 2006 e Janeiro de 2012 que correspondiam aos objetivos da revisão. Foi utilizada a taxonomia SORT para a classificação dos resultados. Dos 253 artigos encontrados foram selecionados cinco que cumpriam os critérios de inclusão. Estes incluem três revisões sistemáticas (RS), uma meta-análise (MA) e uma norma de orientação clínica (NOC) baseada numa RS. Os artigos selecionados avaliaram a redução da mortalidade por câncer da mama através do rastreio com mamografia. A realização do rastreio mamográfico entre os 50 e os 69 anos é recomendado em todos os artigos que avaliam esta faixa etária. A NOC recomenda o rastreio bienal. Em suma, a mamografia deverá ser realizada entre os 50 e os 69 anos com uma periodicidade bienal. Estes resultados vão ao encontro do atual indicador de desempenho do rastreio do câncer da mama em Portugal.The scope of this review was to assess the strength of evidence for the current Portuguese performance indicator on breast cancer screening with mammography in order to determine the recommended age group and periodicity for screening. A search for articles was conducted in the main international databases of medical literature. Articles published between January 2006 and January 2012 addressing the objectives of this review were included. The SORT taxonomy was used to classify the results. Of the 253 articles, five articles met the inclusion criteria and were selected for review. These included three systematic reviews, one meta-analysis and one clinical guideline based on a systematic review. A reduction in breast cancer mortality with mamography screening was the outcome in all articles selected. Mammography screening between 50 and 69 years was recommended in all articles that assess this age group. The clinical guidelines recommended screening every two years. In conclusion, the current literature recommends mammography for women every two years between the ages of 50 and 69 years. This is consistent with the current performance indicator for breast cancer screening in Portugal

Changing indications and socio-demographic determinants of (adeno)tonsillectomy among children in England--are they linked? A retrospective analysis of hospital data.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether increased awareness and diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) and national guidance on tonsillectomy for recurrent tonsillitis have influenced the socio-demographic profile of children who underwent tonsillectomy over the last decade. METHOD: Retrospective time-trends study of Hospital Episodes Statistics data. We examined the age, sex and deprivation level, alongside OSAS diagnoses, among children aged <16 years who underwent (adeno)tonsillectomy in England between 2001/2 and 2011/12. RESULTS: Among children aged <16 years, there were 29,697 and 27,732 (adeno)tonsillectomies performed in 2001/2 and 2011/12, respectively. The median age at (adeno)tonsillectomy decreased from 7 (IQR: 5-11) to 5 (IQR: 4-9) years over the decade. (Adeno)tonsillectomy rates among children aged 4-15 years decreased by 14% from 350 (95%CI: 346-354) in 2001/2 to 300 (95%CI: 296-303) per 100,000 children in 2011/12. However, (adeno)tonsillectomy rates among children aged <4 years increased by 58% from 135 (95%CI: 131-140) to 213 (95%CI 208-219) per 100,000 children in 2001/2 and 2011/2, respectively. OSAS diagnoses among children aged <4 years who underwent surgery increased from 18% to 39% between these study years and the proportion of children aged <4 years with OSAS from the most deprived areas increased from 5% to 12%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: (Adeno)tonsillectomy rates declined among children aged 4-15 years, which reflects national guidelines recommending the restriction of the operation to children with more severe recurrent throat infections. However, (adeno)tonsillectomy rates among pre-school children substantially increased over the past decade and one in five children undergoing the operation was aged <4 years in 2011/12.The increase in surgery rates in younger children is likely to have been driven by increased awareness and detection of OSAS, particularly among children from the most deprived areas

What do evidence-based secondary journals tell us about the publication of clinically important articles in primary healthcare journals?

BACKGROUND: We conducted this analysis to determine i) which journals publish high-quality, clinically relevant studies in internal medicine, general/family practice, general practice nursing, and mental health; and ii) the proportion of clinically relevant articles in each journal. METHODS: We performed an analytic survey of a hand search of 170 general medicine, general healthcare, and specialty journals for 2000. Research staff assessed individual articles by using explicit criteria for scientific merit for healthcare application. Practitioners assessed the clinical importance of these articles. Outcome measures were the number of high-quality, clinically relevant studies published in the 170 journal titles and how many of these were published in each of four discipline-specific, secondary "evidence-based" journals (ACP Journal Club for internal medicine and its subspecialties; Evidence-Based Medicine for general/family practice; Evidence-Based Nursing for general practice nursing; and Evidence-Based Mental Health for all aspects of mental health). Original studies and review articles were classified for purpose: therapy and prevention, screening and diagnosis, prognosis, etiology and harm, economics and cost, clinical prediction guides, and qualitative studies. RESULTS: We evaluated 60,352 articles from 170 journal titles. The pass criteria of high-quality methods and clinically relevant material were met by 3059 original articles and 1073 review articles. For ACP Journal Club (internal medicine), four titles supplied 56.5% of the articles and 27 titles supplied the other 43.5%. For Evidence-Based Medicine (general/family practice), five titles supplied 50.7% of the articles and 40 titles supplied the remaining 49.3%. For Evidence-Based Nursing (general practice nursing), seven titles supplied 51.0% of the articles and 34 additional titles supplied 49.0%. For Evidence-Based Mental Health (mental health), nine titles supplied 53.2% of the articles and 34 additional titles supplied 46.8%. For the disciplines of internal medicine, general/family practice, and mental health (but not general practice nursing), the number of clinically important articles was correlated withScience Citation Index (SCI) Impact Factors. CONCLUSIONS: Although many clinical journals publish high-quality, clinically relevant and important original studies and systematic reviews, the articles for each discipline studied were concentrated in a small subset of journals. This subset varied according to healthcare discipline; however, many of the important articles for all disciplines in this study were published in broad-based healthcare journals rather than subspecialty or discipline-specific journals

Family physicians' information seeking behaviors: A survey comparison with other specialties

BACKGROUND: Using technology to access clinical information has become a critical skill for family physicians. The aims of this study were to assess the way family physicians use the Internet to look for clinical information and how their patterns vary from those of specialists. Further, we sought a better understanding of how family physicians used just-in-time information in clinical practice. METHODS: A fax survey was provided with 17 items. The survey instrument, adapted from two previous studies, was sent to community-based physicians. The questions measured frequency of use and importance of the Internet, palm computers, Internet CME, and email for information seeking and CME. Barriers to use were explored. Demographic data was gathered concerning gender, years since medical school graduation, practice location, practice type, and practice specialty. RESULTS: Family physicians found the Internet to be useful and important as an information source. They were more likely to search for patient oriented material than were specialists who more often searched literature, journals and corresponded with colleagues. Hand held computers were used by almost half of family physicians. CONCLUSION: Family physicians consider the Internet important to the practice of medicine, and the majority use it regularly. Their searches differ from colleagues in other specialties with a focus on direct patient care questions. Almost half of family physicians use hand held computers, most often for drug reference

Optimal management of adults with pharyngitis – a multi-criteria decision analysis

BACKGROUND: Current practice guidelines offer different management recommendations for adults presenting with a sore throat. The key issue is the extent to which the clinical likelihood of a Group A streptococcal infection should affect patient management decisions. To help resolve this issue, we conducted a multi-criteria decision analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. METHODS: We defined optimal patient management using four criteria: 1) reduce symptom duration; 2) prevent infectious complications, local and systemic; 3) minimize antibiotic side effects, minor and anaphylaxis; and 4) achieve prudent use of antibiotics, avoiding both over-use and under-use. In our baseline analysis we assumed that all criteria and sub-criteria were equally important except minimizing anaphylactic side effects, which was judged very strongly more important than minimizing minor side effects. Management strategies included: a) No test, No treatment; b) Perform a rapid strep test and treat if positive; c) Perform a throat culture and treat if positive; d) Perform a rapid strep test and treat if positive; if negative obtain a throat culture and treat if positive; and e) treat without further tests. We defined four scenarios based on the likelihood of group A streptococcal infection using the Centor score, a well-validated clinical index. Published data were used to estimate the likelihoods of clinical outcomes and the test operating characteristics of the rapid strep test and throat culture for identifying group A streptococcal infections. RESULTS: Using the baseline assumptions, no testing and no treatment is preferred for patients with Centor scores of 1; two strategies – culture and treat if positive and rapid strep with culture of negative results – are equally preferable for patients with Centor scores of 2; and rapid strep with culture of negative results is the best management strategy for patients with Centor scores 3 or 4. These results are sensitive to the priorities assigned to the decision criteria, especially avoiding over-use versus under-use of antibiotics, and the population prevalence of Group A streptococcal pharyngitis. CONCLUSION: The optimal clinical management of adults with sore throat depends on both the clinical probability of a group A streptococcal infection and clinical judgments that incorporate individual patient and practice circumstances

FORM: An Australian method for formulating and grading recommendations in evidence-based clinical guidelines

Extent: 8p.BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are an important element of evidence-based practice. Considering an often complicated body of evidence can be problematic for guideline developers, who in the past may have resorted to using levels of evidence of individual studies as a quasi-indicator for the strength of a recommendation. This paper reports on the production and trial of a methodology and associated processes to assist Australian guideline developers in considering a body of evidence and grading the resulting guideline recommendations. METHODS: In recognition of the complexities of clinical guidelines and the multiple factors that influence choice in health care, a working group of experienced guideline consultants was formed under the auspices of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to produce and pilot a framework to formulate and grade guideline recommendations. Consultation with national and international experts and extensive piloting informed the process. RESULTS: The FORM framework consists of five components (evidence base, consistency, clinical impact, generalisability and applicability) which are used by guideline developers to structure their decisions on how to convey the strength of a recommendation through wording and grading via a considered judgement form. In parallel (but separate from the grading process) guideline developers are asked to consider implementation implications for each recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The framework has now been widely adopted by Australian guideline developers who find it to be a logical and intuitive way to formulate and grade recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.Susan Hillier, Karen Grimmer-Somers, Tracy Merlin, Philippa Middleton, Janet Salisbury, Rebecca Tooher and Adele Westo

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 9. Grading evidence and recommendations

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the ninth of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the literature on grading evidence and recommendations in guidelines. METHODS: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct a full systematic review ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: Should WHO grade the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations? • Users of recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the underlying evidence and the recommendations. The degree of confidence depends on a number of factors and requires complex judgments. These judgments should be made explicitly in WHO recommendations. A systematic and explicit approach to making judgments about the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations can help to prevent errors, facilitate critical appraisal of these judgments, and can help to improve communication of this information. What criteria should be used to grade evidence and recommendations? • Both the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations should be graded. The criteria used to grade the strength of recommendations should include the quality of the underlying evidence, but should not be limited to that. • The approach to grading should be one that has wide international support and is suitable for a wide range of different types of recommendations. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which is currently suggested in the Guidelines for WHO Guidelines, is being used by an increasing number of other organizations internationally. It should be used more consistently by WHO. Further developments of this approach should ensure its wide applicability. Should WHO use the same grading system for all of its recommendations? • Although there are arguments for and against using the same grading system across a wide range of different types of recommendations, WHO should use a uniform grading system to prevent confusion for developers and users of recommendations