Report on activities and attitudes of organizations active in the clinical practice guideline field

Department of Health Care and Promotion, CMA, Ottawa, Ont.
Canadian Medical Association Journal (Impact Factor: 5.96). 11/1995; 153(7):901-7.
Source: PubMed


The organizing committee of a workshop on clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) surveyed invited organizations on their attitudes and activities related to five topics to be covered during the workshop sessions: organizational roles, priority setting, guidelines implementation, guidelines evaluation and development of a network of those active in the CPG field. Organizational roles: The national specialty societies were felt to have the largest role to play; the smallest roles were assigned to consumers, who were seen to have a role mainly in priority setting, and to industry and government, both of which were seen to have primarily a funding role. Many barriers to collaboration were identified, the solutions to all of which appeared to be better communication, establishment of common principles and clear role definitions. Priority setting: There was considerable agreement on the criteria that should be used to set priorities for CPG activities: the burden of disease on population health, the state of scientific knowledge, the cost of treatment and the economic burden of disease on society were seen as important factors, whereas the costs of guidelines development and practitioner interest in guidelines development were seen as less important. Organizations were unable to give much information on how they set priorities. Guidelines implementation: Most of the organizations surveyed did not actively try to ensure the implementation of guidelines, although a considerable minority devoted resources to implementation. The 38% of organizations that implemented guidelines actively listed a wide variety of activities, including training, use of local opinion leaders, information technology, local consensus processes and counter detailing. Guidelines evaluation: Formal evaluation of guidelines was undertaken by fewer than 13% of the responding organizations. All the evaluations incorporated assessments before and after guideline implementation, and some used primary patient data. Barriers to evaluation included lack of money, time, data or expertise. CPG Network: Most of the respondents felt that all organizations and individuals interested or involved in guidelines should form the membership of the network. The three most important functions of such a network were deemed to be (a) to facilitate collaboration among those involved in the CPG process, (b) to maintain an information centre on CPGs and (c) to provide expertise to the CPG process. It was felt that the network should have some formal structure and communicate through e-mail and print media.

6 Reads
  • Source
    • "To identify the most productive avenue for ongoing investigation it is essential to first analyze related issues, and select an approach that is relevant and actionable. Many factors influence whether and how guidelines are used, including guideline characteristics (quality of format and content), and individual (provider characteristics), institutional (capacity to collect, adapt, share and apply evidence), and health system (policies, resources) attributes [9-12]. While these factors may challenge use of guidelines, it appears that a number of issues may be influential further upstream of the setting in which guidelines are meant to be applied. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Population based studies show that guidelines are underused. Surveys of international guideline developers found that many do not implement their guidelines. The purpose of this research was to interview guideline developers about implementation approaches and resources. Methods Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with representatives of guideline development agencies identified in the National Guideline Clearinghouse and sampled by country, type of developer, and guideline clinical indication. Participants were asked to comment on the benefits and resource implications of three approaches for guideline implementation that varied by responsibility: developers, intermediaries, or users. Results Thirty individuals from seven countries were interviewed, representing government (n = 12) and professional (n = 18) organizations that produced guidelines for a variety of clinical indications. Organizations with an implementation mandate featured widely inconsistent funding and staffing models, variable approaches for choosing promotional strategies, and an array of dissemination activities. When asked to choose a preferred approach, most participants selected the option of including information within guidelines that would help users to implement them. Given variable mandate and resources for implementation, it was considered the most feasible approach, and therefore most likely to have impact due to potentially broad use. Conclusions While implementation approaches and strategies need not be standardized across organizations, the findings may be used by health care policy makers and managers, and guideline developers to generate strategic and operational plans that optimize implementation capacity. Further research is needed to examine how to optimize implementation capacity by guideline developers, intermediaries and users.
    BMC Health Services Research 11/2012; 12(1):404. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-12-404 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "As a result many guidelines are passively distributed [19-21]. Surveys of international guideline developers found that few developers implemented their own guidelines, had dedicated implementation staff, or evaluated use of their guidelines, and many believed that target users should be responsible for implementation [22-25]. Accountability for guideline implementation may differ by jurisdiction and organization depending on the structure of the healthcare system and how programs are funded. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Guidelines continue to be underutilized, and a variety of strategies to improve their use have been suboptimal. Modifying guideline features represents an alternative, but untested way to promote their use. The purpose of this study was to identify and define features that facilitate guideline use, and examine whether and how they are included in current guidelines. A guideline implementability framework was developed by reviewing the implementation science literature. We then examined whether guidelines included these, or additional implementability elements. Data were extracted from publicly available high quality guidelines reflecting primary and institutional care, reviewed independently by two individuals, who through discussion resolved conflicts, then by the research team. The final implementability framework included 22 elements organized in the domains of adaptability, usability, validity, applicability, communicability, accommodation, implementation, and evaluation. Data were extracted from 20 guidelines on the management of diabetes, hypertension, leg ulcer, and heart failure. Most contained a large volume of graded, narrative evidence, and tables featuring complementary clinical information. Few contained additional features that could improve guideline use. These included alternate versions for different users and purposes, summaries of evidence and recommendations, information to facilitate interaction with and involvement of patients, details of resource implications, and instructions on how to locally promote and monitor guideline use. There were no consistent trends by guideline topic. Numerous opportunities were identified by which guidelines could be modified to support various types of decision making by different users. New governance structures may be required to accommodate development of guidelines with these features. Further research is needed to validate the proposed framework of guideline implementability, develop methods for preparing this information, and evaluate how inclusion of this information influences guideline use.
    Implementation Science 03/2011; 6(1, article 26):26. DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-6-26 · 4.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "When acted upon, guidelines have been shown to have potential to improve both the process of care and patient health outcomes [14,15]. However, the actual value of guidelines has seldom been assessed through formal evaluation procedures [16-18], and when they are evaluated, they are often found to fall short of expectations [14,17,19]. A great deal rests on the quality of the implementation strategies. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Audits have shown numerous deficiencies in the quality of hypertension and diabetes primary care in Barbados, despite distribution of regional guidelines. This study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes and practices, and the barriers faced by primary care practitioners in Barbados concerning the recommendations of available diabetes and hypertension guidelines. Focus groups using a moderator's manual were conducted at all 8 public sector polyclinics, and 5 sessions were held for private practitioners. Polyclinic sessions were attended by 63 persons (17 physicians, 34 nurses, 3 dieticians, 3 podiatrists, 5 pharmacists, and 1 other), and private sector sessions by 20 persons (12 physicians, 1 nurse, 3 dieticians, 2 podiatrists and 2 pharmacists). Practitioners generally thought they gave a good quality of care. Commonwealth Caribbean Medical Research Council 1995 diabetes and 1998 hypertension guidelines, and the Ministry of Health 2001 diabetes protocol had been seen by 38%, 32% and 78% respectively of polyclinic practitioners, 67%, 83%, and 33% of private physicians, and 25%, 0% and 38% of non-physician private practitioners. Current guidelines were considered by some to be outdated, unavailable, difficult to remember and lacking in advice to tackle barriers. Practitioners thought that guidelines should be circulated widely, promoted with repeated educational sessions, and kept short. Patient oriented versions of the guidelines were welcomed. Patient factors causing barriers to ideal outcome included denial and fear of stigma; financial resources to access an appropriate diet, exercise and monitoring equipment; confusion over medication regimens, not valuing free medication, belief in alternative medicines, and being unable to change habits. System barriers included lack of access to blood investigations, clinic equipment and medication; the lack of human resources in polyclinics; and an uncoordinated team approach. Patients faced cultural barriers with regards to meals, exercise, appropriate body size, footwear, medication taking, and taking responsibility for one's health; and difficulty getting time off work to attend clinic. Guidelines need to be promoted repeatedly, and implemented with strategies to overcome barriers. Their development and implementation must be guided by input from all providers on the primary health care team.
    BMC Family Practice 12/2010; 11(1):96. DOI:10.1186/1471-2296-11-96 · 1.67 Impact Factor
Show more


6 Reads
Available from