Dimitrios Stefanidis1, William S Richardson, Robert D Fanelli. 1. Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1000 Blythe Boulevard, MEB 601, Charlotte, NC 28203, USA. Dimitrios.Stefanidis@Carolinashealthcare.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The development and implementation of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines involves many challenges. The Society of the American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) has been at the forefront of guideline development for laparoscopic surgery since 1991, providing its membership with guidelines on the clinical application of procedures and the granting of privileges. The objective of this study was to assess the use of SAGES guidelines by its members. METHODS: An electronic survey of SAGES members was conducted via e-mail in August 2007. Members were asked if they used the guidelines, how often, for what purposes and when, and to rank the frequency of use and the usefulness of each of the 26 guidelines. They also were asked to suggest topics for new guideline development and to provide comments. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-nine SAGES members (4.1%) responded to the survey; 121 (50%) responders used the guidelines. Of these, 95% accessed the guidelines monthly or less often, 58% after hours, 52% during work hours, and 9% while on call. Reasons for guideline use included developing practice protocols (56%) and patient treatment paradigms (51%), creating education and training guidelines for staff privileges (35%), and credentialing new medical staff (25%). The most often used and most useful guidelines included clinical application guidelines on laparoscopic bariatric, antireflux, biliary, and colorectal surgery, laparoscopic appendectomy, and deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. Some respondents indicated no knowledge of guideline existence and made requests for new guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey provided valuable information about current use of SAGES guidelines by its members. The pattern of use highlights the need for interventions that increase member awareness and adoption of these guidelines. Such efforts are currently underway.
BACKGROUND: The development and implementation of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines involves many challenges. The Society of the American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) has been at the forefront of guideline development for laparoscopic surgery since 1991, providing its membership with guidelines on the clinical application of procedures and the granting of privileges. The objective of this study was to assess the use of SAGES guidelines by its members. METHODS: An electronic survey of SAGES members was conducted via e-mail in August 2007. Members were asked if they used the guidelines, how often, for what purposes and when, and to rank the frequency of use and the usefulness of each of the 26 guidelines. They also were asked to suggest topics for new guideline development and to provide comments. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-nine SAGES members (4.1%) responded to the survey; 121 (50%) responders used the guidelines. Of these, 95% accessed the guidelines monthly or less often, 58% after hours, 52% during work hours, and 9% while on call. Reasons for guideline use included developing practice protocols (56%) and patient treatment paradigms (51%), creating education and training guidelines for staff privileges (35%), and credentialing new medical staff (25%). The most often used and most useful guidelines included clinical application guidelines on laparoscopic bariatric, antireflux, biliary, and colorectal surgery, laparoscopic appendectomy, and deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. Some respondents indicated no knowledge of guideline existence and made requests for new guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey provided valuable information about current use of SAGES guidelines by its members. The pattern of use highlights the need for interventions that increase member awareness and adoption of these guidelines. Such efforts are currently underway.
Authors: Charles L Bennett; Mark R Somerfield; David G Pfister; Cecilia Tomori; Sofia Yakren; Peter B Bach Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nancy Edwards; Barbara Davies; Jenny Ploeg; Maureen Dobbins; Jennifer Skelly; Pat Griffin; Sylvia Ralphs-Thibodeau Journal: Can Nurse Date: 2005-02
Authors: Richard L Skolasky; Anica M Maggard; Alan S Hilibrand; Bruce E Northrup; Christopher G Ullrich; Todd J Albert; Jeffrey D Coe; Lee H Riley Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2006-07-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Colin B Begg; Elyn R Riedel; Peter B Bach; Michael W Kattan; Deborah Schrag; Joan L Warren; Peter T Scardino Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stefan Kommoss; Philipp Harter; Alexander Traut; Deivis Strutas; Nina Riegler; Christine Buhrmann; Ruth Gomez; Andreas du Bois Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Ylva Skånér; Gunnar H Nilsson; Britt Arrelöv; Christina Lindholm; Elin Hinas; Anna Löfgren Wilteus; Kristina Alexanderson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2011-12-20 Impact factor: 2.692