12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Physicians’ attitudes toward, use of, and perceived barriers to clinical guidelines: a survey among Swiss physicians

      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

          Little is known about the attitudes toward, use of, and perceived barriers to clinical guidelines in Switzerland, a country with no national guideline agency. Moreover, there is no available data on the objective assessment of guideline knowledge in Switzerland. Therefore, we conducted a study at a large university’s Department of General Internal Medicine in Switzerland to assess physicians’ attitudes toward, use of, perceived barriers to, and knowledge of clinical guidelines.

          Participants and methods

          Ninety-six physicians (residents, n=78, and attendings, n=18) were invited to take part in a survey. Attitudes toward, self-reported use of, and barriers hindering adherence to the clinical guidelines were assessed using established scales and frameworks. Knowledge of the guidelines was objectively tested in a written assessment comprising of 14 multiple-choice and 3 short answer case-based questions.

          Results

          Fifty-five participants completed the survey (residents, n=42, and attendings, n=13; overall response rate 57%). Of these, 50 took part in the knowledge assessment (residents, n=37, and attendings, n=13; overall response rate 52%). Attitudes toward guidelines were favorable. They were considered to be a convenient source of advice (94% agreement), good educational tools (89% agreement), and likely to improve patient quality of care (91% agreement). Self-reported use of guidelines was limited, with only one-third reporting using guidelines often or very often. The main barriers to guideline adherence were identified as lack of guideline awareness and familiarity, applicability of existing guidelines to multimorbid patients, unfavorable guideline factors, and lack of time as well as inertia toward changing previous practice. In the assessment of guideline knowledge, the scores were rather modest (mean ± standard deviation: 60.5%±12.7% correct answers).

          Conclusion

          In general, this study found favorable physician attitudes toward clinical guidelines. However, several barriers hindering guideline implementation were identified. The importance of improving guideline implementation was supported by modest results in a guideline knowledge test.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

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

          Thou shalt versus thou shalt not: a meta-synthesis of GPs' attitudes to clinical practice guidelines.

          GPs' adherence to clinical practice guidelines is variable. Barriers to guideline implementation have been identified but qualitative studies have not been synthesised to explore what underpins these attitudes. To explore and synthesise qualitative research on GPs' attitudes to and experiences with clinical practice guidelines. Systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Social Science Citation Index, and Science Citation Index were used as data sources, and independent data extraction was carried out. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Initial thematic analysis was conducted, followed by interpretative synthesis. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. Five were excluded following quality appraisal. Twelve papers were synthesised which reported research in the UK, US, Canada, and the Netherlands, and covered different clinical guideline topics. Six themes were identified: questioning the guidelines, GPs' experience, preserving the doctor-patient relationship, professional responsibility, practical issues, and guideline format. Comparative analysis and synthesis revealed that GPs' reasons for not following guidelines differed according to whether the guideline in question was prescriptive, in that it encouraged a certain type of behaviour or treatment, or proscriptive, in that it discouraged certain treatments or behaviours. Previous analyses of guidelines have focused on professional attitudes and organisational barriers to adherence. This synthesis suggests that the purpose of the guideline, whether its aims are prescriptive or proscriptive, may influence if and how guidelines are received and implemented.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Current Guidelines Have Limited Applicability to Patients with Comorbid Conditions: A Systematic Analysis of Evidence-Based Guidelines

            Background Guidelines traditionally focus on the diagnosis and treatment of single diseases. As almost half of the patients with a chronic disease have more than one disease, the applicability of guidelines may be limited. The aim of this study was to assess the extent that guidelines address comorbidity and to assess the supporting evidence of recommendations related to comorbidity. Methodology/Principal Findings We conducted a systematic analysis of evidence-based guidelines focusing on four highly prevalent chronic conditions with a high impact on quality of life: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depressive disorder, diabetes mellitus type 2, and osteoarthritis. Data were abstracted from each guideline on the extent that comorbidity was addressed (general comments, specific recommendations), the type of comorbidity discussed (concordant, discordant), and the supporting evidence of the comorbidity-related recommendations (level of evidence, translation of evidence). Of the 20 guidelines, 17 (85%) addressed the issue of comorbidity and 14 (70%) provided specific recommendations on comorbidity. In general, the guidelines included few recommendations on patients with comorbidity (mean 3 recommendations per guideline, range 0 to 26). Of the 59 comorbidity-related recommendations provided, 46 (78%) addressed concordant comorbidities, 8 (14%) discordant comorbidities, and for 5 (8%) the type of comorbidity was not specified. The strength of the supporting evidence was moderate for 25% (15/59) and low for 37% (22/59) of the recommendations. In addition, for 73% (43/59) of the recommendations the evidence was not adequately translated into the guidelines. Conclusions/Significance Our study showed that the applicability of current evidence-based guidelines to patients with comorbid conditions is limited. Most guidelines do not provide explicit guidance on treatment of patients with comorbidity, particularly for discordant combinations. Guidelines should be more explicit about the applicability of their recommendations to patients with comorbidity. Future clinical trials should also include patients with the most prevalent combinations of chronic conditions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Clinicians' attitudes to clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.

              To systematically review surveys of clinicians' attitudes to clinical practice guidelines. MEDLINE, HealthStar, Embase and CINAHL were searched electronically for English-only surveys published from 1990 to 2000. We included surveys with responses to one or more of seven propositions (see below). Studies were excluded if they had fewer than 100 respondents or if the response rate was less than 60%. Thirty studies included responses to one or more of the seven items, giving a total of 11 611 responses. The response rate for the included studies was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69%-75%). Clinicians agreed that guidelines were helpful sources of advice (weighted mean, 75%; 66%-83%), good educational tools (71%; 63%-79%) and intended to improve quality (70%; 60%-80%). However, clinicians also considered guidelines impractical and too rigid to apply to individual patients (30%; 23%-36%), that they reduced physician autonomy and oversimplified medicine (34%; 22%-47%), would increase litigation (41%; 32%-49%) and were intended to cut healthcare costs (52.8%; 39%-66%). Surveys of healthcare providers consistently report high satisfaction with clinical practice guidelines and a belief that they will improve quality, but there are concerns about the practicality of guidelines, their role in cost-cutting and their potential for increasing litigation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Adv Med Educ Pract
                Adv Med Educ Pract
                Advances in Medical Education and Practice
                Advances in Medical Education and Practice
                Dove Medical Press
                1179-7258
                2016
                13 December 2016
                : 7
                : 673-680
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of General Internal Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
                [2 ]Department of Assessment and Evaluation, Institute of Medical Education, Medical Faculty Bern, Bern, Switzerland
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Tanja Birrenbach, Department of General Internal Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland, Tel +41 31 632 2111, Email tanja.birrenbach@ 123456insel.ch
                Article
                amep-7-673
                10.2147/AMEP.S115149
                5167524
                28008300
                2bd438f5-36c8-47f0-aeb4-6b4990353866
                © 2016 Birrenbach et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                History
                Categories
                Original Research

                clinical guidelines,attitudes,barriers,knowledge,survey,physicians

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content127

                Cited by15

                Most referenced authors879