Dataset Information

Why don't physicians adhere to guideline recommendations in practice? An analysis of barriers among Dutch general practitioners.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite wide distribution and promotion of clinical practice guidelines, adherence among Dutch general practitioners (GPs) is not optimal. To improve adherence to guidelines, an analysis of barriers to implementation is advocated. Because different recommendations within a guideline can have different barriers, in this study we focus on key recommendations rather than guidelines as a whole, and explore the barriers to implementation perceived by Dutch GPs.

Methods

A qualitative study using six focus groups was conducted, in which 30 GPs participated, with an average of seven per session. Fifty-six key recommendations were derived from twelve national guidelines. In each focus group, barriers to the implementation of the key recommendations of two clinical practice guidelines were discussed. Focus group discussions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data was analysed by using an existing framework of barriers.

Results

The barriers varied largely within guidelines, with each key recommendation having a unique pattern of barriers. The most perceived barriers were lack of agreement with the recommendations due to lack of applicability or lack of evidence (68% of key recommendations), environmental factors such as organisational constraints (52%), lack of knowledge regarding the guideline recommendations (46%), and guideline factors such as unclear or ambiguous guideline recommendations (43%).

Conclusion

Our study findings suggest a broad range of barriers. As the barriers largely differ within guidelines, tailored and barrier-driven implementation strategies focusing on key recommendations are needed to improve adherence in practice. In addition, guidelines should be more transparent concerning the underlying evidence and applicability, and further efforts are needed to address complex issues such as comorbidity in guidelines. Finally, it might be useful to include focus groups in continuing medical education as an innovative medium for guideline education and implementation.

SUBMITTER: Lugtenberg M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2734568 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Why don't physicians adhere to guideline recommendations in practice? An analysis of barriers among Dutch general practitioners.

Lugtenberg Marjolein M Zegers-van Schaick Judith M JM Westert Gert P GP Burgers Jako S JS

Implementation science : IS 20090812

<h4>Background</h4>Despite wide distribution and promotion of clinical practice guidelines, adherence among Dutch general practitioners (GPs) is not optimal. To improve adherence to guidelines, an analysis of barriers to implementation is advocated. Because different recommendations within a guideline can have different barriers, in this study we focus on key recommendations rather than guidelines as a whole, and explore the barriers to implementation perceived by Dutch GPs.<h4>Methods</h4>A qua ...[more]

PMID: 19674440

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite considerable efforts to promote and support guideline use, adherence is often suboptimal. Barriers to adherence vary not only across guidelines but also across recommendations within guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess the perceived barriers to guideline adherence among GPs by focusing on key recommendations within guidelines.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey among 703 GPs in the Netherlands. Sixteen key recommendations were derived from four national guidelines. Six statements were included to address the attitudes towards guidelines in general. In addition, GPs were asked to rate their perceived adherence (one statement) and the perceived barriers (fourteen statements) for each of the key recommendations, based on an existing framework.Results264 GPs (38%) completed the questionnaire. Although 35% of the GPs reported difficulties in changing routines and habits to follow guidelines, 89% believed that following guidelines leads to improved patient care. Perceived adherence varied between 52 and 95% across recommendations (mean: 77%). The most perceived barriers were related to external factors, in particular patient ability and behaviour (mean: 30%) and patient preferences (mean: 23%). Lack of applicability of recommendations in general (mean: 22%) and more specifically to individual patients (mean: 25%) were also frequently perceived as barriers. The scores on perceived barriers differed largely between recommendations [minimum range 14%; maximum range 67%].ConclusionsDutch GPs have a positive attitude towards the NHG guidelines, report high adherence rates and low levels of perceived barriers. However, the perceived adherence and perceived barriers varied largely across recommendations. The most perceived barriers across recommendations are patient related, suggesting that current guidelines do not always adequately incorporate patient preferences, needs and abilities. It may be useful to provide tools such as decision aids, supporting the flexible use of guidelines to individual patients in practice.

Project description:ObjectiveThere has been an increase in testing of vitamins in patients in general practice, often based on irrational indications or for non-specific symptoms, causing increasing healthcare expenditures and medicalisation of patients. So far, there is little evidence of effective strategies to reduce this overtesting in general practice. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to explore the barriers and facilitators for reducing the number of (unnecessary) vitamin D and B12 laboratory tests ordered.Design and settingThis qualitative study, based on a grounded theory design, used semistructured interviews among general practitioners (GPs) and patients from two primary care networks (147 GPs, 195?000 patients). These networks participated in the Reducing Vitamin Testing in Primary Care Practice (REVERT) study, a clustered randomized trial comparing two de-implementation strategies to reduce test ordering in primary care in the Netherlands.ParticipantsTwenty-one GPs, with a maximum of 1 GP per practice who took part in the REVERT study, and 22 patients (who were invited by their GP during vitamin-related consultations) were recruited, from which 20 GPs and 19 patients agreed to participate in this study.ResultsThe most important factor hampering vitamin-test reduction programmes is the mismatch between patients and medical professionals regarding the presumed appropriate indications for testing for vitamin D and B12. In contrast, the most important facilitator for vitamin-test reduction may be updating GPs' knowledge about test indications and their awareness of their own testing behaviour.ConclusionTo achieve a sustainable reduction in vitamin testing, guidelines with clear and uniform recommendations on evidence-based indications for vitamin testing, combined with regular (individual) feedback on test-ordering behaviour, are needed. Moreover, the general public needs access to clear and reliable information on vitamin testing. Further research is required to measure the effect of these strategies on the number of vitamin test requests.Trial registration numberWAG/mb/16/039555.

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines have been developed to assist healthcare practitioners in clinical decision making. Publication of clinical practice guidelines does not automatically lead to their uptake and barrier identification has been recognized as an important step in implementation planning. This study aimed at developing a questionnaire to identify perceived barriers for implementing the Dutch COPD guideline for physical therapists and its recommended measurement instruments.MethodsAn overall questionnaire, based on two existing questionnaires, was constructed to identify barriers and facilitators for implementing the COPD guideline. The construct of the questionnaire was assessed in a cross-sectional study among 246 chest physical therapists. Factor analysis was conducted to explore underlying dimensions. Psychometric properties were analyzed using Cronbach's alpha. Barriers and facilitators were assessed using descriptive statistics.ResultsSome 139 physical therapists (57%) responded. Factor analysis revealed 4-factor and 5-factor solutions with an explained variance of 36% and 39% respectively. Cronbach's alpha of the overall questionnaire was 0.90, and varied from 0.66 to 0.92 for the different factors. Underlying domains of the 5-factor solution were characterized as: attitude towards using measurement instruments, knowledge and skills of the physical therapist, applicability of the COPD guideline, required investment of time & money, and patient characteristics. Physical therapists showed a positive attitude toward using the COPD guideline. Main barriers for implementation were required time investment and financial constraints.ConclusionsThe construct of the questionnaire revealed relevant underlying domains for the identification of barriers and facilitators for implementing the COPD guideline. The questionnaire allowed for tailoring to the target group and may be used across health care professionals as basis for in-depth analysis of barriers to specific recommendations in guidelines. The results of the questionnaire alone do not provide sufficient information to inform the development of an implementation strategy. The infrastructure for developing the guideline can be used for addressing key barriers by the guideline development group, using the questionnaire as well as in-depth analysis such as focus group interviews. Further development of methods for prospective identification of barriers and consequent tailoring of implementation interventions is required.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:We previously identified that general practitioners (GPs) in French-speaking regions of Europe had a variable uptake of common preventive recommendations. In this study, we describe GPs' reports of how they put different preventive recommendations into practice. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Cross-sectional study conducted in 2015 in Switzerland and France. 3400 randomly selected GPs were asked to complete a postal (n=1100) or online (n=2300) questionnaire. GPs who exclusively practiced complementary and alternative medicine were not eligible for the study. 764 GPs (response rate: postal 47%, online 11%) returned the questionnaire (428 in Switzerland and 336 in France). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:We investigated how the GPs performed five preventive practices (screening for dyslipidaemia, colorectal and prostate cancer, identification of hazardous alcohol consumption and brief intervention), examining which age group they selected, the screening frequency, the test they used, whether they favoured shared decision for prostate cancer screening and their definition of hazardous alcohol use. RESULTS:A large variability was observed in the way in which GPs provide these practices. 41% reported screening yearly for cholesterol, starting and stopping at variable ages. 82% did not use any test to identify hazardous drinking. The most common responses for defining hazardous drinking were, for men, ?21?drinks/week (24%) and ?4?drinks/occasion for binge drinking (20%), and for women, ?14?drinks/week (28%) and ?3?drinks/occasion (21%). Screening for colorectal cancer, mainly with colonoscopy in Switzerland (86%) and stool-based tests in France (93%), was provided every 10 years in Switzerland (65%) and 2?years in France (91%) to patients between 50 years (87%) and 75 years (67%). Prostate cancer screening, usually with shared decision (82%), was provided yearly (62%) to patients between 50 years (74%) and 75-80 years (32%-34%). CONCLUSIONS:The large diversity in the way these practices are provided needs to be addressed, as it could be related to some misunderstandingof the current guidelines, to barriers for guideline uptake or, more likely, to the absence of agreement between the various recommendations.

Project description:BackgroundMillions of individuals worldwide use statins, and their significant impact on cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been well-established. However, a lack of knowledge about the up-to-date guideline recommendations regarding statin therapy is a common barrier to implementation in clinical practice. Therefore, the present study aimed to assess the current clinical knowledge about statin therapy and its monitoring parameters. Also, we evaluated the barriers to cholesterol management guideline implementation in Yemen.MethodsThis observational cross-sectional study was conducted over four months, from June/2021 to September/2021, in Sana'a, Yemen. A validated questionnaire was distributed face-to-face to 650 participants (350 physicians and 300 pharmacists). Physicians and pharmacists from governmental and private hospitals and those working in private clinics or community pharmacies were included in the study.ResultsA total of 496 participants filled out the survey, with 22 being excluded due to incomplete data. So, the study has an overall response rate of 72.9% (474). The majority of pharmacists (81.8%) and physicians (78.7%) could not identify the patient group that needed ASCVD risk assessment before statin therapy initiation. Although a significant proportion of respondents knew of the fact that high-intensity statins are recommended for patients with ASCVD (65.4%) and primary hypercholesterolemia (58.4%), the majority of physicians and pharmacists could not identify the high (61.6% and 66.7.3%, respectively) and moderate statin-intensity doses (72.2% and 68.6%, respectively). Only 21.9% of all respondents knew that atorvastatin and rosuvastatin can be administered at any time of the day. Similarly, a low overall rate of respondents (19.6%) knew that atorvastatin does not need dose adjustment in chronic kidney diseases, with a statistically significant difference in knowledge between physicians and pharmacists (12.5% vs. 25.6%, p <0.001, respectively). Notably, only 39.2% of participants were aware that statins are not safe to use during breastfeeding. Around half of respondents (52.3%) correctly identify the duration (4 to 12 weeks) at which LD-C measuring is recommended after therapy initiation or dose change. The lowest knowledge scores for respondents were related to statin-drug interactions. Age, experience, degree, and previous guideline exposure were all significantly associated with the knowledge scores (p <0.05). The four most perceived barriers to implementing cholesterol management guidelines were no audit on adherence to the guidelines in the workplace (73.4%), insufficient resources to adequately implement and follow up on the guideline's recommendations (73.6%), patient's financial status (75.7%), and lack of familiarity about the guideline's latest recommendations (63.3%).ConclusionPhysicians and pharmacists had suboptimal clinical knowledge regarding statin therapy, dose intensities, drug-drug interaction, contraindications, and monitoring parameters. Therefore, physicians' and pharmacists' educational interventions regarding the up-to-date recommendation about statins are recommended.

Dataset Information

Why don't physicians adhere to guideline recommendations in practice? An analysis of barriers among Dutch general practitioners.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Why don't physicians adhere to guideline recommendations in practice? An analysis of barriers among Dutch general practitioners.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets