125
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Guidelines continue to be underutilized, and a variety of strategies to improve their use have been suboptimal. Modifying guideline features represents an alternative, but untested way to promote their use. The purpose of this study was to identify and define features that facilitate guideline use, and examine whether and how they are included in current guidelines.

          Methods

          A guideline implementability framework was developed by reviewing the implementation science literature. We then examined whether guidelines included these, or additional implementability elements. Data were extracted from publicly available high quality guidelines reflecting primary and institutional care, reviewed independently by two individuals, who through discussion resolved conflicts, then by the research team.

          Results

          The final implementability framework included 22 elements organized in the domains of adaptability, usability, validity, applicability, communicability, accommodation, implementation, and evaluation. Data were extracted from 20 guidelines on the management of diabetes, hypertension, leg ulcer, and heart failure. Most contained a large volume of graded, narrative evidence, and tables featuring complementary clinical information. Few contained additional features that could improve guideline use. These included alternate versions for different users and purposes, summaries of evidence and recommendations, information to facilitate interaction with and involvement of patients, details of resource implications, and instructions on how to locally promote and monitor guideline use. There were no consistent trends by guideline topic.

          Conclusions

          Numerous opportunities were identified by which guidelines could be modified to support various types of decision making by different users. New governance structures may be required to accommodate development of guidelines with these features. Further research is needed to validate the proposed framework of guideline implementability, develop methods for preparing this information, and evaluate how inclusion of this information influences guideline use.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review.

          Developers of health care software have attributed improvements in patient care to these applications. As with any health care intervention, such claims require confirmation in clinical trials. To review controlled trials assessing the effects of computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and to identify study characteristics predicting benefit. We updated our earlier reviews by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Inspec, and ISI databases and consulting reference lists through September 2004. Authors of 64 primary studies confirmed data or provided additional information. We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of a CDSS compared with care provided without a CDSS on practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Teams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data on methods, setting, CDSS and patient characteristics, and outcomes. One hundred studies met our inclusion criteria. The number and methodologic quality of studies improved over time. The CDSS improved practitioner performance in 62 (64%) of the 97 studies assessing this outcome, including 4 (40%) of 10 diagnostic systems, 16 (76%) of 21 reminder systems, 23 (62%) of 37 disease management systems, and 19 (66%) of 29 drug-dosing or prescribing systems. Fifty-two trials assessed 1 or more patient outcomes, of which 7 trials (13%) reported improvements. Improved practitioner performance was associated with CDSSs that automatically prompted users compared with requiring users to activate the system (success in 73% of trials vs 47%; P = .02) and studies in which the authors also developed the CDSS software compared with studies in which the authors were not the developers (74% success vs 28%; respectively, P = .001). Many CDSSs improve practitioner performance. To date, the effects on patient outcomes remain understudied and, when studied, inconsistent.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            How Can Research Organizations More Effectively Transfer Research Knowledge to Decision Makers?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Gaps between knowing and doing: understanding and assessing the barriers to optimal health care.

              A significant gap exists between science and clinical practice guidelines, on the one hand, and actual clinical practice, on the other. An in-depth understanding of the barriers and incentives contributing to the gap can lead to interventions that effect change toward optimal practice and thus to better care. A systematic review of English language studies involving human subjects and published from January 1998 to March 2007 yielded 256 articles that fulfilled established criteria. The analysis was guided by two research questions: How are barriers are assessed? and What types of barriers are identified? The studies abstracted were coded according to 33 emerging themes; placed into seven categories that typified the barriers; grouped as to whether they involved the health care professional, the guideline, the scientific evidence, the patient, or the health system; and organized according to relationship pattern between barriers. The results expand our understanding of how multiple factors pose barriers to optimal clinical practice. The review reveals increasing numbers of behavioral and system barriers. Quantitative survey type assessments continue to dominate barrier research; however, an increasing number of qualitative and mixed-method study designs have emerged recently. The findings establish the evolution of research methodologies and emerging barriers to the translation of knowing to doing. While many studies are methodologically weak, there are indications that designs are becoming more aligned with the complexity of the health care environment. The review provides support for the need to examine multiple factors within the knowledge-to-action process.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Implement Sci
                Implementation Science : IS
                BioMed Central
                1748-5908
                2011
                22 March 2011
                : 6
                : 26
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Departments of Surgery; and Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation; and Institute of Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]Department of Oncology; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ]Department of Medicine; and Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Guidelines Advisory Committee at the Centre for Effective Practice, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ]Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation; and Institute of Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [5 ]Clinical Epidemiology; Department of Medicine, Centre for Best Practices, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                Article
                1748-5908-6-26
                10.1186/1748-5908-6-26
                3072935
                21426574
                0edcb606-d996-4e96-990b-af181cd1036f
                Copyright ©2011 Gagliardi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 31 August 2010
                : 22 March 2011
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article