Dataset Information

The Case for Using Evidence-Based Guidelines in Setting Hospital and Public Health Policy.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Hospital systems and regulating agencies enforce strict guidelines barring personal items from entering the operating room (OR) - touting surgical site infections (SSIs) and patient safety as the rationale. We sought to determine whether or not evidence supporting this recommendation exists by reviewing available literature. BACKGROUND DATA:Rules and guidelines that are not evidence based may lead to increased hospital expenses and limitations on healthcare provider autonomy. METHODS:PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched in order to find articles that correlated personal items in the OR to documented SSIs. Articles that satisfied the following criteria were included: (1) studies looking at personal items in the OR, such as handbags, purses, badges, pagers, backpacks, jewelry phones, and eyeglasses, but not just OR equipment; and (2) the primary outcome measure was infection at the surgical site. RESULTS:Seventeen articles met inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Of the 17, the majority did not determine if personal items increased risk for SSIs. Only one article examined the correlation between a personal item near the operative site and SSI, concluding that wedding rings worn in the OR had no impact on SSIs. Most studies examined colonization rates on personal items as potential infection risk; however, no personal items were causally linked to SSI in any of these studies. CONCLUSION:There is no objective evidence to suggest that personal items in the OR increase risk for SSIs.

SUBMITTER: Francis RH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4810072 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Case for Using Evidence-Based Guidelines in Setting Hospital and Public Health Policy.

Francis Ross H RH Mudery Jordan A JA Tran Phi P Howe Carol C Jacob Abraham A

Frontiers in surgery 20160329

<h4>Objective</h4>Hospital systems and regulating agencies enforce strict guidelines barring personal items from entering the operating room (OR) - touting surgical site infections (SSIs) and patient safety as the rationale. We sought to determine whether or not evidence supporting this recommendation exists by reviewing available literature.<h4>Background data</h4>Rules and guidelines that are not evidence based may lead to increased hospital expenses and limitations on healthcare provider auto ...[more]

PMID: 27066489

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis study examines the relationship between evidence-based appropriateness criteria for neurologic imaging procedures and Medicare payment determinations. The primary research question is whether Medicare is more likely to pay for imaging procedures as the level of appropriateness increases.Data sourcesThe American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (ACRAC) for neurological imaging, ICD-9-CM codes, CPT codes, and payment determinations by the Medicare Part B carrier for Florida and Connecticut.Study designCross-sectional study of appropriateness criteria and Medicare Part B payment policy for neurological imaging. In addition to descriptive and bivariate statistics, multivariate logistic regression on payment determination (yes or no) was performed.Data collection methodsThe American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (ACRAC) documents specific to neurological imaging, ICD-9-CM codes, and CPT codes were used to create 2,510 medical condition/imaging procedure combinations, with associated appropriateness scores (coded as low/middle/high).Principal findingsAs the level of appropriateness increased, more medical condition/imaging procedure combinations were payable (low = 61 percent, middle = 70 percent, and high = 74 percent). Logistic regression indicated that the odds of a medical condition/imaging procedure combination with a middle level of appropriateness being payable was 48 percent higher than for an otherwise similar combination with a low appropriateness score (95 percent CI on odds ratio=1.19-1.84). The odds ratio for being payable between high and low levels of appropriateness was 2.25 (95 percent CI: 1.66-3.04).ConclusionsMedicare could improve its payment determinations by taking advantage of existing clinical guidelines, appropriateness criteria, and other authoritative resources for evidence-based practice. Such an approach would give providers a financial incentive that is aligned with best-practice medicine. In particular, Medicare should review and update its payment policies to reflect current information on the appropriateness of alternative imaging procedures for the same medical condition.

Project description:The burden of mental illness is excessive, but many countries lack evidence-based policies to improve practice. Mental health research evidence translation into policymaking is a 'wicked problem', often failing despite a robust evidence base. In a recent systematic review, we identified a gap in frameworks on agenda setting and actionability, and pragmatic, effective tools to guide action to link research and policy are needed. Responding to this gap, we developed the new EVITA 1.1 (EVIdence To Agenda setting) conceptual framework for mental health research-policy interrelationships in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We (1) drafted a provisional framework (EVITA 1.0); (2) validated it for specific applicability to mental health; (3) conducted expert in-depth interviews to (a) validate components and mechanisms and (b) assess intelligibility, functionality, relevance, applicability and effectiveness. To guide interview validation, we developed a simple evaluation framework. (4) Using deductive framework analysis, we coded and identified themes and finalized the framework (EVITA 1.1). Theoretical agenda-setting elements were added, as targeting the policy agenda-setting stage was found to lead to greater policy traction. The framework was validated through expert in-depth interviews (n?=?13) and revised. EVITA 1.1 consists of six core components [advocacy coalitions, (en)actors, evidence generators, external influences, intermediaries and political context] and four mechanisms (capacity, catalysts, communication/relationship/partnership building and framing). EVITA 1.1 is novel and unique because it very specifically addresses the mental health research-policy process in LMICs and includes policy agenda setting as a novel, effective mechanism. Based on a thorough methodology, and through its specific design and mechanisms, EVITA has the potential to improve the challenging process of research evidence translation into policy and practice in LMICs and to increase the engagement and capacity of mental health researchers, policy agencies/planners, think tanks, NGOs and others within the mental health research-policy interface. Next, EVITA 1.1 will be empirically tested in a case study.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Ensuring health policies are informed by evidence still remains a challenge despite efforts devoted to this aim. Several tools and approaches aimed at fostering evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) have been developed, yet there is a lack of availability of indicators specifically devoted to assess and support EIPM. The present study aims to overcome this by building a set of measurable indicators for EIPM intended to infer if and to what extent health-related policies are, or are expected to be, evidence-informed for the purposes of policy planning as well as formative and summative evaluations. METHODS:The indicators for EIPM were developed and validated at international level by means of a two-round internet-based Delphi study conducted within the European project 'REsearch into POlicy to enhance Physical Activity' (REPOPA). A total of 82 researchers and policy-makers from the six European countries (Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, the United Kingdom) involved in the project and international organisations were asked to evaluate the relevance and feasibility of an initial set of 23 indicators developed by REPOPA researchers on the basis of literature and knowledge gathered from the previous phases of the project, and to propose new indicators. RESULTS:The first Delphi round led to the validation of 14 initial indicators and to the development of 8 additional indicators based on panellists' suggestions; the second round led to the validation of a further 11 indicators, including 6 proposed by panellists, and to the rejection of 6 indicators. A total of 25 indicators were validated, covering EIPM issues related to human resources, documentation, participation and monitoring, and stressing different levels of knowledge exchange and involvement of researchers and other stakeholders in policy development and evaluation. CONCLUSION:The study overcame the lack of availability of indicators to assess if and to what extent policies are realised in an evidence-informed manner thanks to the active contribution of researchers and policy-makers. These indicators are intended to become a shared resource usable by policy-makers, researchers and other stakeholders, with a crucial impact on fostering the development of policies informed by evidence.

Dataset Information

The Case for Using Evidence-Based Guidelines in Setting Hospital and Public Health Policy.

Publications

The Case for Using Evidence-Based Guidelines in Setting Hospital and Public Health Policy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets