BACKGROUND: There is concern about the apparent lack of uptake of management and referral guideline information by general practitioners (GPs) in their day-to-day consultations with patients. Little is understood about the barriers to the uptake of guidelines as perceived by GPs. AIMS: To explore how GPs gain access to and use guidelines, including computer-based guidelines, in day-to-day consultations with their patients; and to identify the perceived problems and barriers to the use of guidelines in such situations. METHOD: Postal questionnaires enquiring about the practices and attitudes towards the use of guidelines in general practice were completed by 391 of 600 randomly selected GPs in the South and West NHS region. RESULTS: GPs found guidelines a useful method of accessing expert information. Key factors in their uptake were brevity, an authoritative and unbiased source of evidence, and resonance with the GP's usual practices; they also needed to be flexible enough to incorporate individual viewpoints. Guidelines were perceived as being valuable to enable safe delegation of care to other health professionals and for sharing decision-making with patients. Dissemination of guidelines through the medium of computers was acceptable to the majority of GPs. Virtually all (93%) responders reported adapting guidelines to the needs of individual patients. Older GPs from non-fundholding practices were least likely to show a positive attitude towards guidelines. CONCLUSION: In principle, there is a very positive attitude towards the use of guidelines in general practice. However, those developing guidelines for use by GPs in the consulting room need to be aware of the factors that facilitate their use in practice. Educational strategies aimed at increasing the use of guidelines need to take into account the significant proportion who show negative attitudes towards guidelines, whose characteristics have been identified in this study.
BACKGROUND: There is concern about the apparent lack of uptake of management and referral guideline information by general practitioners (GPs) in their day-to-day consultations with patients. Little is understood about the barriers to the uptake of guidelines as perceived by GPs. AIMS: To explore how GPs gain access to and use guidelines, including computer-based guidelines, in day-to-day consultations with their patients; and to identify the perceived problems and barriers to the use of guidelines in such situations. METHOD: Postal questionnaires enquiring about the practices and attitudes towards the use of guidelines in general practice were completed by 391 of 600 randomly selected GPs in the South and West NHS region. RESULTS: GPs found guidelines a useful method of accessing expert information. Key factors in their uptake were brevity, an authoritative and unbiased source of evidence, and resonance with the GP's usual practices; they also needed to be flexible enough to incorporate individual viewpoints. Guidelines were perceived as being valuable to enable safe delegation of care to other health professionals and for sharing decision-making with patients. Dissemination of guidelines through the medium of computers was acceptable to the majority of GPs. Virtually all (93%) responders reported adapting guidelines to the needs of individual patients. Older GPs from non-fundholding practices were least likely to show a positive attitude towards guidelines. CONCLUSION: In principle, there is a very positive attitude towards the use of guidelines in general practice. However, those developing guidelines for use by GPs in the consulting room need to be aware of the factors that facilitate their use in practice. Educational strategies aimed at increasing the use of guidelines need to take into account the significant proportion who show negative attitudes towards guidelines, whose characteristics have been identified in this study.
Authors: Jako S Burgers; Richard P T M Grol; Joost O M Zaat; Teun H Spies; Akke K van der Bij; Henk G A Mokkink Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Alan C Breen; Maurits W van Tulder; Bart W Koes; Irene Jensen; Rhoda Reardon; Gert Bronfort Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2005-06-02 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Nicholas J G Pimlott; Malini Persaud; Neil Drummond; Carole A Cohen; James L Silvius; Karen Seigel; Gary R Hollingworth; William B Dalziel Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 3.275