Literature DB >> 7553491

Report on activities and attitudes of organizations active in the clinical practice guidelines field.

A O Carter1, R N Battista, M J Hodge, S Lewis, A Basinski, D Davis.   

Abstract

The organizing committee of a workshop on clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) surveyed invited organizations on their attitudes and activities related to five topics to be covered during the workshop sessions: organizational roles, priority setting, guidelines implementation, guidelines evaluation and development of a network of those active in the CPG field. Organizational roles: The national specialty societies were felt to have the largest role to play; the smallest roles were assigned to consumers, who were seen to have a role mainly in priority setting, and to industry and government, both of which were seen to have primarily a funding role. Many barriers to collaboration were identified, the solutions to all of which appeared to be better communication, establishment of common principles and clear role definitions. Priority setting: There was considerable agreement on the criteria that should be used to set priorities for CPG activities: the burden of disease on population health, the state of scientific knowledge, the cost of treatment and the economic burden of disease on society were seen as important factors, whereas the costs of guidelines development and practitioner interest in guidelines development were seen as less important. Organizations were unable to give much information on how they set priorities. Guidelines implementation: Most of the organizations surveyed did not actively try to ensure the implementation of guidelines, although a considerable minority devoted resources to implementation. The 38% of organizations that implemented guidelines actively listed a wide variety of activities, including training, use of local opinion leaders, information technology, local consensus processes and counter detailing. Guidelines evaluation: Formal evaluation of guidelines was undertaken by fewer than 13% of the responding organizations. All the evaluations incorporated assessments before and after guideline implementation, and some used primary patient data. Barriers to evaluation included lack of money, time, data or expertise. CPG Network: Most of the respondents felt that all organizations and individuals interested or involved in guidelines should form the membership of the network. The three most important functions of such a network were deemed to be (a) to facilitate collaboration among those involved in the CPG process, (b) to maintain an information centre on CPGs and (c) to provide expertise to the CPG process. It was felt that the network should have some formal structure and communicate through e-mail and print media.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7553491      PMCID: PMC1487370     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  6 in total

1.  Ethics and clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  M A Somerville
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1993-04-01       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Clinical practice guidelines as legal norms.

Authors:  D Jutras
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1993-03-15       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Initiating, conducting and maintaining guidelines development programs.

Authors:  R S Hayward; A Laupacis
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1993-02-15       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Clinical practice guidelines: between science and art.

Authors:  R N Battista; M J Hodge
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1993-02-01       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Implementing practice guidelines.

Authors:  G Anderson
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1993-03-01       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Coordination of guidelines development.

Authors:  A D Oxman
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1993-04-15       Impact factor: 8.262

  6 in total
  14 in total

1.  Maternity Care Guidelines checklist. To assist physicians in implementing CPGs.

Authors:  C M Kirkham; S Grzybowski
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 2.  Does continuing medical education in general practice make a difference?

Authors:  P Cantillon; R Jones
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-05-08

3.  The evolving paradigm of health technology assessment: reflections for the millennium.

Authors:  R N Battista; M J Hodge
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1999-05-18       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 4.  Translating guidelines into practice. A systematic review of theoretic concepts, practical experience and research evidence in the adoption of clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  D A Davis; A Taylor-Vaisey
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1997-08-15       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Setting priorities and selecting topics for clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  R N Battista; M J Hodge
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1995-11-01       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Paradox, process and perception: the role of organizations in clinical practice guidelines development.

Authors:  S Lewis
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1995-10-15       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 7.  Evaluation of clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  A S Basinski
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1995-12-01       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  Prioritization strategies in clinical practice guidelines development: a pilot study.

Authors:  Ludovic Reveiz; Diana R Tellez; Juan S Castillo; Paola A Mosquera; Marcela Torres; Luis G Cuervo; Andres F Cardona; Rodrigo Pardo
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2010-03-06

9.  Qualitative evaluation of the Canadian Medical Association's counselling guidelines for HIV serologic testing.

Authors:  M S Rowan; M Toombs; G Bally; D J Walters; J Henderson
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-03-01       Impact factor: 8.262

10.  Reconsidering patient participation in guideline development.

Authors:  Hester M van de Bovenkamp; Margo J Trappenburg
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2008-12-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.