BACKGROUND: Despite a strong evidence-base for several therapies recommended in the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), many patients do not receive these therapies. The barriers preventing translation of evidence into practice are incompletely understood. The aim of this study was to survey clinicians regarding barriers to implementing recommendations of recently published national clinical guidelines and to determine the extent to which these impact clinical practice. METHODS: A survey of clinicians at hospitals included in Australian Collaborative Acute Coronary Syndromes Prospective Audit (ACACIA, n = 3402, PML0051) was conducted, measuring self-stated knowledge, beliefs and guideline-concordant behaviours in relation to their care of ACS patients. Correlations between individual respondents' self-estimated rates and clinician's institutional rates of guideline-concordant behaviours were performed. RESULTS: Most respondents (n = 50/86, 58%) were aware of current guidelines and their scope, achieving 7/10 (Interquartile Range (IQR) = 2) median score on knowledge questions. Belief in benefits and agreement with guideline-recommended therapy was high. However, none of these factors correlated with increased use of guideline therapies. Apart from clopidogrel (r(s) = 0.28, p < 0.01) and early interventional therapy for high-risk non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (r(s) = 0.31, p < 0.01), there were no significant correlations between individual clinicians' self-estimated rates of guideline-concordant practice and rates recorded in ACACIA data for their respective institution. CONCLUSION: Beliefs about practice do not match actual practice. False beliefs regarding levels of evidence-based practice may contribute to inadequate implementation of evidence-based guidelines. Strategies such as continuous real-time audit and feedback of information for the delivery of care may help clinicians understand their levels of practice better and improve care.
BACKGROUND: Despite a strong evidence-base for several therapies recommended in the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), many patients do not receive these therapies. The barriers preventing translation of evidence into practice are incompletely understood. The aim of this study was to survey clinicians regarding barriers to implementing recommendations of recently published national clinical guidelines and to determine the extent to which these impact clinical practice. METHODS: A survey of clinicians at hospitals included in Australian Collaborative Acute Coronary Syndromes Prospective Audit (ACACIA, n = 3402, PML0051) was conducted, measuring self-stated knowledge, beliefs and guideline-concordant behaviours in relation to their care of ACS patients. Correlations between individual respondents' self-estimated rates and clinician's institutional rates of guideline-concordant behaviours were performed. RESULTS: Most respondents (n = 50/86, 58%) were aware of current guidelines and their scope, achieving 7/10 (Interquartile Range (IQR) = 2) median score on knowledge questions. Belief in benefits and agreement with guideline-recommended therapy was high. However, none of these factors correlated with increased use of guideline therapies. Apart from clopidogrel (r(s) = 0.28, p < 0.01) and early interventional therapy for high-risk non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (r(s) = 0.31, p < 0.01), there were no significant correlations between individual clinicians' self-estimated rates of guideline-concordant practice and rates recorded in ACACIA data for their respective institution. CONCLUSION: Beliefs about practice do not match actual practice. False beliefs regarding levels of evidence-based practice may contribute to inadequate implementation of evidence-based guidelines. Strategies such as continuous real-time audit and feedback of information for the delivery of care may help clinicians understand their levels of practice better and improve care.
Authors: Domenico Flotta; Paolo Rizza; Pierluigi Coscarelli; Claudia Pileggi; Carmelo G A Nobile; Maria Pavia Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Josien Engel; Marie-Julie Heeren; Ineke van der Wulp; Martine C de Bruijne; Cordula Wagner Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-09-22 Impact factor: 2.655