Article

From PORT to Policy to Patient Outcomes: Crossing the Quality Chasm

New York State Psychiatric Institute, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Schizophrenia Bulletin (Impact Factor: 8.61). 12/2009; 36(1):109-11. DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbp142
Source: PubMed
Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Harold Alan Pincus, Jul 06, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
64 Views
  • Nordic journal of psychiatry 10/2010; 64(5):291-2. · 1.50 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence-based clinical guidelines are developed to educate and inform physicians about best practices in patient care, and assist providers in the application of treatments and technologies that can improve outcomes. Clinical guidelines also aid appeal of payment decisions; serve as the basis for quality measure development, appropriateness criteria, and maintenance of certification modules; and help identify areas for further clinical research. For guidelines to serve dermatologists effectively in these diverse roles, they must be current, varied in clinical focus, and developed with a high degree of rigor that includes attention to potential conflicts of interest. To address these needs and keep pace with advances in medicine, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) recently revised the evidence-based guideline development process. Key changes include development of a yearly needs assessment process to determine what guidelines are most needed, the development of focused guidelines that address rapidly evolving clinical topics, a formal method of vetting guidelines produced by other societies, and a scheduled reassessment of existing guidelines to ensure they provide current and practical information. The process for identifying and managing potential conflicts of interest was also revised and expanded to meet current expectations and evolving standards. The impact of these changes to the AAD's guideline development process will not be fully realized for several years. These changes will help ensure the AAD will be able to provide its members with continued evidence-based guidance to support patient care across the scope of dermatologic practice.
    Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 06/2011; 64(6):e105-12. DOI:10.1016/j.jaad.2010.10.029 · 5.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Metabolic and cardiovascular health problems have become a major focus for clinical care and research in schizophrenia. To evaluate the content and quality of screening guidelines for cardiovascular risk in schizophrenia. Systematic review and quality assessment of guidelines/recommendations for cardiovascular risk in people with schizophrenia published between 2000 and 2010, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE). The AGREE domain scores varied between the 18 identified guidelines. Most guidelines scored best on the domains 'scope and purpose' and 'clarity of presentation'. The domain 'rigour of development' was problematic in most guidelines, and the domains 'stakeholder involvement' and 'editorial independence' scored the lowest. The following measurements were recommended (in order of frequency): fasting glucose, body mass index, fasting triglycerides, fasting cholesterol, waist, high-density lipoprotein/low-density lipoprotein, blood pressure and symptoms of diabetes. In terms of interventions, most guidelines recommended advice on physical activity, diet, psychoeducation of the patient, treatment of lipid abnormalities, treatment of diabetes, referral for advice and treatment, psychoeducation of the family and smoking cessation advice. Compared across all domains and content, four European guidelines could be recommended. Four of the evaluated guidelines are of good quality and should guide clinicians' screening and monitoring practices. Future guideline development could be improved by increasing its rigour and assuring user and patient involvement.
    The British journal of psychiatry: the journal of mental science 08/2011; 199(2):99-105. DOI:10.1192/bjp.bp.110.084665 · 7.34 Impact Factor