From autonomy to accountability: the role of clinical practice guidelines in professional power

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) aims to address the persistent problem of clinical practice variation with the help of various tools, including standardized practice guidelines. Based on a systematic evaluation of the available scientific evidence, these guidelines offer recommendations for clinicians about details of patient care and clinical decision making. Because clinical practice guidelines specify how health care should be performed, they could be considered a threat to clinical and professional autonomy. Inspired by the theory of countervailing powers, this article explores how clinical practice guidelines have shifted the focus of professional power from autonomy to accountability. Professional organizations develop clinical practice guidelines as a service to their members but do not require strict adherence to the guidelines. Indeed, implementation studies show at best a modest change in clinical behavior. Such non-adherence might render a profession vulnerable, however, when third parties seize upon guidelines and offer financial incentives to keep clinicians accountable for delivering optimal patient care.     

Cost-effectiveness of exome sequencing: an Italian pilot study on undiagnosed patients

Recent advances in genomic sequencing and their implementation in clinical practice are widely recognized as diagnostic milestones, and are influencing considerably medical decision making in term of patients’ management. The cost-effectiveness of genomic analysis as first-tier tests has been documented. However, only a few studies have assessed systematically the economic impact of a revised diagnostic trajectory based on exome sequencing in the health system for undiagnosed patients. We report on the assessment of diagnostic costs referred to a large cohort of patients enrolled in the Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital’s “Undiagnosed Patients Program”, supporting the cost-effectiveness of exome sequencing in a universalistic health care service compared to the traditional multi-step diagnostic workup. Our data provide evidence that revision of health policy to promote genomic sequencing of patients with suspected Mendelian disorders would allow reallocation of resources for rare diseases from diagnostics to patient care. At a social level, diagnosis is crucial to receive the social “sick role” and establish an effective doctor-patient relationship. The application of genomic sequencing as first-tier diagnostic test does improve this process speeding up the diagnosis and management of undiagnosed patients.     

Integrating guideline development and implementation: Analysis of guideline development manual instructions for generating implementation advice

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Guidelines are important tools that inform health care delivery based on best available research evidence. Guideline use is in part based on quality of the guidelines, which varies. Others hypothesized this is due to limited instructions in guideline development manuals. The purpose of this study was to examine manual instructions for implementation advice. METHODS: We used a directed and summative content analysis approach based on an established framework of guideline implementability. Six manuals identified by another research group were examined to enumerate implementability domains and elements. RESULTS: Manuals were similar in content but lacked sufficient detail in particular domains. Most frequently this was Accomodation, which includes information that would help guideline users anticipate and/or overcome organizational and system level barriers. In more than one manual information was also lacking for Communicability, information that would educate patients or facilitate their involvement in shared decision making, and Applicability, or clinical parameters to help clinicians tailor recommendations for individual patients. DISCUSSION: Most manuals that direct guideline development lack complete information about incorporating implementation advice. These findings can be used by those who developed the manuals to consider expanding their content in these domains. It can also be used by guideline developers as they plan the content and implementation of their guidelines so that the two are integrated. New approaches for guideline development and implementation may need to be developed. Use of guidelines might be improved if they included implementation advice, but this must be evaluated through ongoing research.     

Translating guidelines into practice: a systematic review of theoretic concepts,practical experience and research evidence in the adoption of clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE: To recommend effective strategies for implementing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). DATA SOURCES: The Research and Development Resource Base in Continuing Medical Education, maintained by the University of Toronto, was searched, as was MEDLINE from January 1990 to June 1996, inclusive, with the use of the MeSH heading "practice guidelines" and relevant text words. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of CPG implementation strategies and reviews of such studies were selected. Randomized controlled trials and trials that objectively measured physicians'' performance or health care outcomes were emphasized. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles were reviewed to determine the effect of various factors on the adoption of guidelines. DATA SYNTHESIS: The articles showed that CPG dissemination or implementation processes have mixed results. Variables that affect the adoption of guidelines include qualities of the guidelines, characteristics of the health care professional, characteristics of the practice setting, incentives, regulation and patient factors. Specific strategies fell into 2 categories: primary strategies involving mailing or publication of the actual guidelines and secondary interventional strategies to reinforce the guidelines. The interventions were shown to be weak (didactic, traditional continuing medical education and mailings), moderately effective (audit and feedback, especially concurrent, targeted to specific providers and delivered by peers or opinion leaders) and relatively strong (reminder systems, academic detailing and multiple interventions). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence shows serious deficiencies in the adoption of CPGs in practice. Future implementation strategies must overcome this failure through an understanding of the forces and variables influencing practice and through the use of methods that are practice- and community-based rather than didactic.     

抑郁症治疗的循证医学研究进展

循证医学是近年来国际上临床医学领域迅速发展起来的新学科,已成为当前国际医学研究中的热点之一,是指对病人的诊 断、治疗、预防、康复和其他决策应建立在当前最佳临床研究证据,是遵循证据的临床医学,强调收集最佳证据。其理念的科学性 和有效性迅速渗透到医学领域的众多学科,循证精神卫生也相继提出并发展。抑郁症是由各种原因引起的以抑郁为主要症状的 一组心境障碍或情感性障碍,近几年能够有效运用循证医学方法为治疗抑郁症寻找最佳临床证据,制定循证诊疗指南成为了临 床医生的迫切要求。本文就抑郁症治疗方面的循证医学研究进展做一综述。     

Blame the Patient,Blame the Doctor or Blame the System? A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies of Patient Safety in Primary Care

Objective

Studies of patient safety in health care have traditionally focused on hospital medicine. However, recent years have seen more research located in primary care settings which have different features compared to secondary care. This study set out to synthesize published qualitative research concerning patient safety in primary care in order to build a conceptual model.

Method

Meta-ethnography, an interpretive synthesis method whereby third order interpretations are produced that best describe the groups of findings contained in the reports of primary studies.

Results

Forty-eight studies were included as 5 discrete subsets where the findings were translated into one another: patients’ perspectives of safety, staff perspectives of safety, medication safety, systems or organisational issues and the primary/secondary care interface. The studies were focused predominantly on issues seen to either improve or compromise patient safety. These issues related to the characteristics or behaviour of patients, staff or clinical systems and interactions between staff, patients and staff, or people and systems. Electronic health records, protocols and guidelines could be seen to both degrade and improve patient safety in different circumstances. A conceptual reading of the studies pointed to patient safety as a subjective feeling or judgement grounded in moral views and with potentially hidden psychological consequences affecting care processes and relationships. The main threats to safety appeared to derive from ‘grand’ systems issues, for example involving service accessibility, resources or working hours which may not be amenable to effective intervention by individual practices or health workers, especially in the context of a public health system.

Conclusion

Overall, the findings underline the human elements in patient safety primary health care. The key to patient safety lies in effective face-to-face communication between patients and health care staff or between the different staff involved in the care of an individual patient. Electronic systems can compromise safety when they override the opportunities for face-to-face communication. The circumstances under which guidelines or protocols are seen to either compromise or improve patient safety needs further investigation.     

The randomized controlled trial: gold standard, or merely standard?

The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is not a gold standard: it is a good experimental design in some circumstances, but that's all. Potential shortcomings in the design and implementation of RCTs are often mentioned in passing, yet most researchers consider that RCTs are always superior to all other types of evidence. This paper examines the limitations of RCTs and shows that some types of evidence commonly supposed to be inferior to all RCTs are actually superior to many. This has important consequences for research methodology, for quality of care in clinical medicine, and--especially--for research funding policy. Because every study design may have problems in particular applications, studies should be evaluated by appropriate criteria, and not primarily according to the simplistic RCT/non-RCT dichotomy promoted by some prominent advocates of the evidence-based medicine movement and by the research evaluation guidelines based on its principles.     

Economic Evaluation of Active Implementation versus Guideline Dissemination for Evidence-Based Care of Acute Low-Back Pain in a General Practice Setting

Introduction

The development and publication of clinical practice guidelines for acute low-back pain has resulted in evidence-based recommendations that have the potential to improve the quality and safety of care for acute low-back pain. Development and dissemination of guidelines may not, however, be sufficient to produce improvements in clinical practice; further investment in active implementation of guideline recommendations may be required. Further research is required to quantify the trade-off between the additional upfront cost of active implementation of guideline recommendations for low-back pain and any resulting improvements in clinical practice.

Methods

Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the IMPLEMENT trial from a health sector perspective to compare active implementation of guideline recommendations via the IMPLEMENT intervention (plus standard dissemination) against standard dissemination alone.

Results

The base-case analysis suggests that delivery of the IMPLEMENT intervention dominates standard dissemination (less costly and more effective), yielding savings of $135 per x-ray referral avoided (-$462.93/3.43). However, confidence intervals around point estimates for the primary outcome suggest that – irrespective of willingness to pay (WTP) – we cannot be at least 95% confident that the IMPLEMENT intervention differs in value from standard dissemination.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate that moving beyond development and dissemination to active implementation entails a significant additional upfront investment that may not be offset by health gains and/or reductions in health service utilization of sufficient magnitude to render active implementation cost-effective.     

A meta‐review of “lifestyle psychiatry”: the role of exercise,smoking, diet and sleep in the prevention and treatment of mental disorders

There is increasing academic and clinical interest in how “lifestyle factors” traditionally associated with physical health may also relate to mental health and psychological well‐being. In response, international and national health bodies are producing guidelines to address health behaviors in the prevention and treatment of mental illness. However, the current evidence for the causal role of lifestyle factors in the onset and prognosis of mental disorders is unclear. We performed a systematic meta‐review of the top‐tier evidence examining how physical activity, sleep, dietary patterns and tobacco smoking impact on the risk and treatment outcomes across a range of mental disorders. Results from 29 meta‐analyses of prospective/cohort studies, 12 Mendelian randomization studies, two meta‐reviews, and two meta‐analyses of randomized controlled trials were synthesized to generate overviews of the evidence for targeting each of the specific lifestyle factors in the prevention and treatment of depression, anxiety and stress‐related disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Standout findings include: a) convergent evidence indicating the use of physical activity in primary prevention and clinical treatment across a spectrum of mental disorders; b) emerging evidence implicating tobacco smoking as a causal factor in onset of both common and severe mental illness; c) the need to clearly establish causal relations between dietary patterns and risk of mental illness, and how diet should be best addressed within mental health care; and d) poor sleep as a risk factor for mental illness, although with further research required to understand the complex, bidirectional relations and the benefits of non‐pharmacological sleep‐focused interventions. The potentially shared neurobiological pathways between multiple lifestyle factors and mental health are discussed, along with directions for future research, and recommendations for the implementation of these findings at public health and clinical service levels.     

Prevalence and Predictors of Major Depression in HIV-Infected Patients on Antiretroviral Therapy in Bamenda, a Semi-Urban Center in Cameroon

Recent blue-ribbon panel reports have concluded that HIV treatment programs in less wealthy countries must integrate mental health identification and treatment into normal HIV clinical care and that research on mental health and HIV in these settings should be a high priority. We assessed the epidemiology of depression in HIV patients on antiretroviral therapy in a small urban setting in Cameroon by administering a structured interview for depression to 400 patients consecutively attending the Bamenda Regional Hospital AIDS Treatment Center. One in five participants met lifetime criteria for MDD, and 7% had MDD within the prior year. Only 33% had ever spoken with a health professional about depression, and 12% reported ever having received depression treatment that was helpful or effective. Over 2/3 with past-year MDD had severe or very severe episodes. The number of prior depressive episodes and the number of HIV symptoms were the strongest predictors of past-year MDD. The prevalence of MDD in Cameroon is as high as that of other HIV-associated conditions, such as tuberculosis and Hepatitis B virus, whose care is incorporated into World Health Organization guidelines. The management of depression needs to be incorporated in HIV-care guidelines in Cameroon and other similar settings.     

Governing stem cell therapy in India: regulatory vacuum or jurisdictional ambiguity?

Stem cell treatments are being offered in Indian clinics although preclinical evidence of their efficacy and safety is lacking. This is attributed to a governance vacuum created by the lack of legally binding research guidelines. By contrast, this paper highlights jurisdictional ambiguities arising from trying to regulate stem cell therapy under the auspices of research guidelines when treatments are offered in a private market disconnected from clinical trials. While statutory laws have been strengthened in 2014, prospects for their implementation remain weak, given embedded challenges of putting healthcare laws and professional codes into practice. Finally, attending to the capacities of consumer law and civil society activism to remedy the problem of unregulated treatments, the paper finds that the very definition of a governance vacuum needs to be reframed to clarify whose rights to health care are threatened by the proliferation of commercial treatments and individualized negligence-based remedies for grievances.     

Evidence-Based Medicine,Clinical Practice Guidelines,and Common Sense in the Management of Osteoporosis

ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefits and limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and clinical judgment in the management of osteoporosis.MethodsA review was conducted of the English-language literature on the origins and applications of RCTs, CPGs, evidence-based medicine, and clinical judgment in the management of osteoporosis.ResultsEvidence-based medicine is use of the currently available best evidence in making clinical decisions for individual patients. CPGs are recommendations for making clinical decisions based on research evidence, sometimes with consideration of expert opinion, health care policy, and costs of care. The highest levels of medical evidence are usually thought to be RCTs and meta-analyses of high-quality RCTs. Although it is desirable and appropriate for clinicians to consider research evidence from RCTs and recommendations presented in CPGs in making clinical decisions, other factors—such as patient preference, comorbidities, affordability, and availability of care—are important for the actual implementation of evidence-based medicine.ConclusionDecisions about who to treat, which drug to use, how best to monitor, and how long to treat require clinical skills in addition to knowledge of medical research. The necessity of integrating common sense and clinical judgment is highlighted by the fact that many patients treated for osteoporosis in clinical practice would not qualify for participation in the pivotal clinical trials that demonstrated efficacy and safety of the drugs used to treat them. (Endocr Pract. 2009;15:573-579)     

Guidelines for medical practice: 2. A possible strategy.

The recognition that much current medical practice is based on incomplete scientific evidence has led to calls for the generation of guidelines for optimal patterns of practice. These guidelines must be developed from a synthesis of existing scientific data ideally obtained from randomized clinical trials. However, at present we may have to rely on less satisfactory data and the views of experts in the field. The primary purpose of these initiatives must be to improve patient care. The Ontario Medical Association has made recommendations on how such guidelines should be produced, and in a recent survey a substantial majority of family physicians supported them. There is general agreement that the coordinating body should be independent of government and other interested parties. In addition, the medical profession must have the primary role, and a number of medical organizations should also be represented. We propose a possible structure for a group charged with developing guidelines for medical practice at a provincial level and on an experimental basis. Recommendations are made on its membership, function and relationship with other organizations. The identification and diffusion of justifiable, scientific practice patterns will help reduce waste of scarce resources, maintain the role of the profession as guardian of the quality of care and ultimately benefit the patient.     

Developing the ethics of implementation research in health

Implementation research (IR) is growing in recognition as an important generator of practical knowledge that can be translated into health policy. With its aim to answer questions about how to improve access to interventions that have been shown to work but have not reached many of the people who could benefit from them, IR involves a range of particular ethical considerations that have not yet been comprehensively covered in international guidelines on health research ethics. The fundamental ethical principles governing clinical research apply equally in IR, but the application of these principles may differ depending on the IR question, context, and the nature of the proposed intervention. IR questions cover a broad range of topics that focus on improving health system functioning and improving equitable and just access to effective health care interventions. As such, IR designs are flexible and often innovative, and ethical principles cannot simply be extrapolated from their applications in clinical research. Meaningful engagement with all stakeholders including communities and research participants is a fundamental ethical requirement that cuts across all study phases of IR and links most ethical concerns. Careful modification of the informed consent process may be required in IR to permit study of a needed intervention. The risks associated with IR may be difficult to anticipate and may be very context-specific. The benefits of IR may not accrue to the same groups who participate in the research, therefore justifying the risks versus benefits of IR may be ethically challenging. The expectation that knowledge generated through IR should be rapidly translated into health policy and practice necessitates up-front commitments from decision-makers to sustainability and scalability of effective interventions. Greater awareness of the particular ethical implications of the features of IR is urgently needed to facilitate optimal ethical conduct of IR and uniform ethical review.     

One hundred years ago : Fashion and medicine

Objective: To determine which attributes of clinical practice guidelines influence the use of guidelines in decision making in clinical practice. Design: Observational study relating the use of 47 different recommendations from 10 national clinical guidelines to 12 different attributes of clinical guidelines—for example, evidence based, controversial, concrete. Setting: General practice in the Netherlands. Subjects: 61 general practitioners who made 12 880 decisions in their contacts with patients. Main outcome measures: Compliance of decisions with clinical guidelines according to the attribute of the guideline. Results: Recommendations were followed in, on average, 61% (7915/12 880) of the decisions. Controversial recommendations were followed in 35% (886/2497) of decisions and non-controversial recommendations in 68% (7029/10 383) of decisions. Vague and non-specific recommendations were followed in 36% (826/2280) of decisions and clear recommendations in 67% (7089/10 600) of decisions. Recommendations that demanded a change in existing practice routines were followed in 44% (1278/2912) of decisions and those that did not in 67% (6637/9968) of decisions. Evidence based recommendations were used more than recommendations for practice that were not based on research evidence (71% (2745/3841) v 57% (5170/9039)). Conclusions: People and organisations setting evidence based clinical practice guidelines should take into account some of the other important attributes of effective recommendations for clinical practice.

Key messages

• Specific attributes of clinical practice guidelines determine whether they are used in practice
• Evidence based recommendations are better followed in practice than recommendations not based on scientific evidence
• Precise definitions of recommended performance improve the use of guidelines
• Testing the feasibility and acceptance of clinical guidelines among the target group is important for effective implementation
• People setting evidence based guidelines need to understand the attributes of effective guidelines

     

The impact of adherence to screening guidelines and of diabetes clinics referral on morbidity and mortality in diabetes

Despite the heightened awareness of diabetes as a major health problem, evidence on the impact of assistance and organizational factors, as well as of adherence to recommended care guidelines, on morbidity and mortality in diabetes is scanty. We identified diabetic residents in Torino, Italy, as of 1st January 2002, using multiple independent data sources. We collected data on several laboratory tests and specialist medical examinations to compare primary versus specialty care management of diabetes and the fulfillment of a quality-of-care indicator based on existing screening guidelines (GCI). Then, we performed regression analyses to identify associations of these factors with mortality and cardiovascular morbidity over a 4 year-follow-up. Patients with the lowest degree of quality of care (i.e. only cared for by primary care and with no fulfillment of GCI) had worse RRs for all-cause (1.72 [95% CI 1.57-1.89]), cardiovascular (1.74 [95% CI 1.50-2.01]) and cancer (1.35 [95% CI 1.14-1.61]) mortality, compared with those with the highest quality of care. They also showed increased RRs for incidence of major cardiovascular events up to 2.03 (95% CI 1.26-3.28) for lower extremity amputations. Receiving specialist care itself increased survival, but was far more effective when combined with the fulfillment of GCI. Throughout the whole set of analysis, implementation of guidelines emerged as a strong modifier of prognosis. We conclude that management of diabetic patients with a pathway based on both primary and specialist care is associated with a favorable impact on all-cause mortality and CV incidence, provided that guidelines are implemented.     

Provision of preventive care to unannounced standardized patients

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relation between physician, training and practice characteristics and the provision of preventive care as described in the guidelines of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Family practices open to new patients within 1 hour''s drive of Hamilton, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 125 family physicians were randomly selected from respondents to an earlier preventive care survey. Of the 125, 44 (35.2%) declined to participate, and an additional 19 (15.2%) initially consented but later withdrew when they closed their practices to new patients. Sixty-two physicians thus participated in the study. INTERVENTION: Unannounced standardized patients posing as new patients to the practice visited study physicians'' practices between September 1994 and August 1995, portraying 4 scenarios: 48-year-old man, 70-year-old man, 28-year-old woman and 52-year-old woman. OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of preventive care manoeuvres carrying grade A, B, C, D and E recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination that were performed, offered or advised. A standard score was computed based on the performance of grade A and B manoeuvres (good or fair evidence for inclusion in the periodic health examination) and the non-performance of grade D and E manoeuvres (fair or good evidence for exclusion from the periodic health examination). RESULTS: Study physicians performed or offered 65.6% of applicable grade A manoeuvres, 31.0% of grade B manoeuvres, 22.4% of grade C manoeuvres, 21.8% of grade D manoeuvres and 4.9% of grade E manoeuvres. The provision of evidence-based preventive care was associated with solo (v. group) practice and capitation or salary (v. fee-for-service) payment method. Preventive care performance was unrelated to physician''s sex, certification in family medicine or problem-based (v. traditional) medical school curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive care guidelines of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination have been incompletely integrated into clinical practice. Research is needed to identify and reduce barriers to the provision of preventive care and to develop and apply effective processes for the creation, dissemination and implementation of clinical practice guidelines.     

Diabetes prevention--from physiology to implementation.

One of the major challenges today is the development of prevention programs for the clinical practice. Our aim was to develop a concept for a primary diabetes prevention program to be implemented in general health care. Lifestyle intervention addressing diet and exercise has reduced the diabetes risk by up to 58%. Early preventive pharmacological strategies have yielded a diabetes risk reduction of 25-30%. These findings offer a compelling evidence base, but delivery of intervention and care is essential. The challenge therefore is the management of prevention and intervention programs considering scientific aspects and practical requirements during implementation. The Diabetes Prevention Workgroup at the German Diabetes Association has developed a concept for a decentralized prevention program. Based on the results of the prevention studies, the intervention concept consists of a three-step program including identification of the individuals at high risk to develop type 2 diabetes (1), followed by general intervention based on individual choice (2) and maintained continuous intervention for motivation maintenance (3). Structured prevention programs will enable nationwide prevention of diabetes mellitus without consuming large resources. This process will be challenging and time consuming, requiring many partners but resulting in a profitable "health" investment.     

Disseminating the best available evidence: New challenges in public reporting of health care

As a direct benefit of the Health Care Reform Act (2010), concerted effort has been deployed to define and characterize the process by which the best available evidence for diagnosis or treatment intervention prognosis can be obtained. The science of research synthesis in health care has established the systematic research protocol by which randomized clinical trials and other clinical studies must be reviewed and compared for the level and quality of the evidence presented, as well as the consensus of the best available evidence synthesized and shared. This process of systematic review yields a reliable and valid approach in comparing different interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat and monitor health conditions in terms of efficacy, and or of effectiveness. The resulting bioinformation outcome of comparative effectiveness and efficacy research review of the available clinical data is expressed as a consensus of the best available evidence, which finds its way in evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, standards of care and eventually, in policies: hence, the acronym CEERAP (comparative effectiveness and efficacy review and policy). The methodological and the procedural criteria that determine and regulate the public reporting dissemination of this sort of bioinformation, and the extent of benefit to the patient's health literacy, which have remained a bit more elusive to this date, are investigated and discussed in this paper.     

The COMET Handbook: version 1.0

The selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare the effects of different interventions directly. For the findings to influence policy and practice, the outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. It is now widely acknowledged that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. Researchers are increasingly addressing this issue through the development and use of a core outcome set, an agreed standardised collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area.Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for guidance on the development, implementation, evaluation and updating of core outcome sets. This Handbook, developed by the COMET Initiative, brings together current thinking and methodological research regarding those issues. We recommend a four-step process to develop a core outcome set. The aim is to update the contents of the Handbook as further research is identified.