Article

Use and perceptions of clinical practice guidelines by internal medicine physicians.

Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, NC 27715, USA.
American Journal of Medical Quality (Impact Factor: 1.78). 05/2007; 22(3):170-6. DOI: 10.1177/1062860607300291
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The authors sought to explore the use and perceptions of clinical practice guidelines among internal medicine physicians. Through a Web-based survey, 201 board-certified internal medicine physicians rated their opinions on several statements using 7-point Likert scales. Most respondents (74.7%) felt that guidelines were suitable for at least half of their patients, although a failure to take comorbid conditions into account was a frequently cited barrier. For patients with cardiovascular disease, there was no difference between individual internists' perceptions of their own compliance with guidelines and their estimates of cardiologists' compliance (P = .14). A large majority of respondents (70.7%) believed that guideline committee member participation in industry-funded research introduces bias into guideline content (median [interquartile range], 5 [4-6]). Although most respondents felt that measuring physicians against guideline-based performance measures encourages evidence-based medicine (76.5%), opinions were split as to whether this practice distracts from patient care or compromises physician autonomy.

0 Followers
 · 
112 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The escalating costs of health care and other recent trends have made health care decisions of great societal import, with decision-making responsibility often being transferred from practitioners to health economists, health plans, and insurers. Health care decision making increasingly is guided by evidence that a treatment is efficacious, effective-disseminable, cost-effective, and scientifically plausible. Under these conditions of heightened cost concerns and institutional-economic decision making, psychologists are losing the opportunity to play a leadership role in mental and behavioral health care: Other types of practitioners are providing an increasing proportion of delivered treatment, and the use of psychiatric medication has increased dramatically relative to the provision of psychological interventions.Research has shown that numerous psychological interventions are efficacious, effective, and cost-effective. However, these interventions are used infrequently with patients who would benefit from them, in part because clinical psychologists have not made a convincing case for the use of these interventions (e.g., by supplying the data that decision makers need to support implementation of such interventions) and because clinical psychologists do not themselves use these interventions even when given the opportunity to do so.Clinical psychologists' failure to achieve a more significant impact on clinical and public health may be traced to their deep ambivalence about the role of science and their lack of adequate science training, which leads them to value personal clinical experience over research evidence, use assessment practices that have dubious psychometric support, and not use the interventions for which there is the strongest evidence of efficacy. Clinical psychology resembles medicine at a point in its history when practitioners were operating in a largely prescientific manner. Prior to the scientific reform of medicine in the early 1900s, physicians typically shared the attitudes of many of today's clinical psychologists, such as valuing personal experience over scientific research. Medicine was reformed, in large part, by a principled effort by the American Medical Association to increase the science base of medical school education. Substantial evidence shows that many clinical psychology doctoral training programs, especially PsyD and for-profit programs, do not uphold high standards for graduate admission, have high student-faculty ratios, deemphasize science in their training, and produce students who fail to apply or generate scientific knowledge.A promising strategy for improving the quality and clinical and public health impact of clinical psychology is through a new accreditation system that demands highquality science training as a central feature of doctoral training in clinical psychology. Just as strengthening training standards in medicine markedly enhanced the quality of health care, improved training standards in clinical psychology will enhance health and mental health care. Such a system will (a) allow the public and employers to identify scientifically trained psychologists; (b) stigmatize ascientific training programs and practitioners; (c) produce aspirational effects, thereby enhancing training quality generally; and (d) help accredited programs improve their training in the application and generation of science. These effects should enhance the generation, application, and dissemination of experimentally supported interventions, thereby improving clinical and public health. Experimentally based treatments not only are highly effective but also are cost-effective relative to other interventions; therefore, they could help control spiraling health care costs. The new Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS) is intended to accredit clinical psychology training programs that offer highquality science-centered education and training, producing graduates who are successful in generating and applying scientific knowledge. Psychologists, universities, and other stakeholders should vigorously support this new accreditation system as the surest route to a scientifically principled clinical psychology that can powerfully benefit clinical and public health.
    Psychological Science in the Public Interest 01/2009; 9(2):67-103. DOI:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01036.x
  • Source
    Psychological Science in the Public Interest 11/2008; 9(2). DOI:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01035.x
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Few would disagree that evidence from clinical research should be brought to the bedside in an efficient and equitable manner. Unfortunately, this common agreement does not result in practice change at the bedside where delayed and variable implementation is common. Recognition of this gap has resulted in a new discipline called implementation science that seeks to understand the reasons for slow adoption of clinical therapeutics and to discover effective strategies that accelerate practice change. This article reviews implementation theory and strategies and their effectiveness and relevance to critical care. The absence of a proven effective framework for implementing clinical practice change has resulted in a patchwork of interventions in ambulatory and acute care medicine. There is an increasing appreciation that interventions should be undertaken only after careful, theory-based examination of the source and strength of the evidence, the organizational and professional context in which the change will be made, and the availability of facilitating methods. Barriers to implementing sepsis management programs have been identified and, in some cases, overcome. Changing clinical practice is sometimes as difficult as the basic science and clinical trials work that led to the discovery of beneficial therapies. Investigators are now beginning to develop and test more theory-based implementation models that are relevant to the clinical environment. A proportion of the resources used in developing an ICU guideline or protocol must be dedicated to the implementation strategy for successful adoption. ICUs are ideal organizations to test new approaches in implementation science. Intensive care professionals should insist that their practice environment have both a culture that is supportive of adopting new practices and adequate resources to implement them into patient care.
    Current opinion in critical care 09/2008; 14(4):460-5. DOI:10.1097/MCC.0b013e3283079eb5 · 3.18 Impact Factor