Dataset Information

Global emergency care clinical practice guidelines: A landscape analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

An adaptive guideline development method, as opposed to a de novo guideline development, is dependent on access to existing high-quality up-to-date clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We described the characteristics and quality of CPGs relevant to prehospital care worldwide, in order to strengthen guideline development in low-resource settings for emergency care.

Methods

We conducted a descriptive study of a database of international CPGs relevant to emergency care produced by the African Federation for Emergency Medicine (AFEM) CPG project in 2016. Guideline quality was assessed with the AGREE II tool, independently and in duplicate. End-user documents such as protocols, care pathways, and algorithms were excluded. Data were imported, managed, and analysed in STATA 14 and R.

Results

In total, 276 guidelines were included. Less than 2% of CPGs originated from low- and middle income-countries (LMICs); only 15% (n?=?38) of guidelines were prehospital specific, and there were no CPGs directly applicable to prehospital care in LMICs. Most guidelines used de novo methods (58%, n?=?150) and were produced by professional societies or associations (63%, n?=?164), with the minority developed by international bodies (3%, n?=?7). National bodies, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), produced higher quality guidelines when compared to international guidelines, professional societies, and clinician/academic-produced guidelines. Guideline quality varied across topics, subpopulations and producers. Resource-constrained guideline developers that cannot afford de novo guideline development have access to an expanding pool of high-quality prehospital guidelines to translate to their local setting.

Discussion

Although some high-quality CPGs exist relevant to emergency care, none directly address the needs of prehospital care in LMICs, especially in Africa. Strengthening guideline development capacity, including adaptive guideline development methods that use existing high-quality CPGs, is a priority.

SUBMITTER: McCaul M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6277502 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Global emergency care clinical practice guidelines: A landscape analysis.

McCaul Michael M Clarke Mike M Bruijns Stevan R SR Hodkinson Peter W PW de Waal Ben B Pigoga Jennifer J Wallis Lee A LA Young Taryn T

African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence 20181024 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>An adaptive guideline development method, as opposed to a <i>de novo</i> guideline development, is dependent on access to existing high-quality up-to-date clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We described the characteristics and quality of CPGs relevant to prehospital care worldwide, in order to strengthen guideline development in low-resource settings for emergency care.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a descriptive study of a database of international CPGs relevant to emergenc ...[more]

PMID: 30534521

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHypertension is the largest single contributor to the global burden of disease, affecting an estimated 1.39 billion people worldwide. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can aid in the effective management of this common condition, however, inconsistencies exist between CPGs, and the extent of this is unknown. Understanding the differences in CPG recommendations across income settings may provide an important means of understanding some of the global variations in clinical outcomes related to hypertension.AimsThis study aims to analyse the variation between hypertension CPGs globally. It aims to assess the variation in three areas: diagnostic threshold and staging, treatment and target blood pressure (BP) recommendations in hypertension.MethodsA search was conducted on the MEDLINE repository to identify national and international hypertension CPGs from 2010 to May 2020. An additional country-specific grey-literature search was conducted for all countries and territories of the world as identified by the World Bank. Data describing the diagnosis, staging, treatment and target blood pressure were extracted from CPGs, and variations between CPGs for these domains were analysed.ResultsForty-eight CPGs from across all World Bank income settings were selected for analysis. Ninety-six per cent of guidelines defined hypertension as a clinic-based BP of ≥140/90 mmHg, and 87% of guidelines recommended a target BP of < 140/90 mmHg. In the pharmacological treatment of hypertension, eight different first-step, 17 different second-step and six different third-step drug recommendations were observed. Low-income countries preferentially recommended diuretics (63%) in the first-step treatment, whilst high-income countries offered more choice between antihypertensive classes. Forty-four per cent of guidelines, of which 71% were from higher-income contexts recommended initiating treatment with dual-drug therapy at BP 160/100 mmHg or higher.ConclusionThis study found that CPGs remained largely consistent in the definition, staging and target BP recommendations for hypertension. Extensive variation was observed in treatment recommendations, particularly for second-line therapy. Variation existed between income settings; low-income countries prescribed cheaper drugs, offered less clinician choice in medications and initiated dual therapy at later stages than higher-income countries. Future research exploring the underlying drivers of this variation may improve outcomes for hypertensive patients across clinical contexts.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been published by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) since 1990 to advance evidence-based emergency care. ACEP clinical policies have drawn anecdotal criticism for bias, yet the overall quality of these guidelines has not previously been quantified. We sought to examine ACEP clinical policies using a recognised, validated appraisal instrument: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II). METHODS:Systematic assessment of current ACEP clinical policies was conducted using the AGREE II instrument, which contains 23 appraisal items (scored on a 1-7 scale) in six domains and two overall assessments. Each policy was independently appraised by five trained appraisers. Primary outcomes were AGREE II ratings for each item, domain and "Overall Assessment," and scores were reported as standardised percentages from all five appraisers. Secondary analyses examined associations between AGREE II ratings and policy publication date, strength of underlying evidence and strength of recommendations. Additional analysis examined relationships between domain and "Overall Assessment" ratings. RESULTS:Twenty guidelines published from April 2007 to November 2017 were included. Of the six domains, "Scope and Purpose" scored highest (mean 90%) and "Applicability" scored lowest (mean 35%). The four remaining domains ("Stakeholder Involvement," "Rigor of Development," "Clarity of Presentation" and "Editorial Independence") had mean scores of 53%-78%. The mean "Overall Assessment" rating was 69% and was not associated with policy publication date, strength of underlying evidence or strength of recommendations. We found positive associations between "Overall Assessment" ratings and two domains: "Rigor of Development" (r = 0.70) and "Clarity of Presentation" (r = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS:Based on validated AGREE II criteria, ACEP clinical policies can be most improved by addressing their application in practice. ACEP clinical policies' overall quality did not improve over the assessed time period and is not explained by the quality of underlying evidence.

Project description:IntroductionOver 25 years, emergency medicine in the United States has amassed a large evidence base that has been systematically assessed and interpreted through ACEP Clinical Policies. While not previously studied in emergency medicine, prior work has shown that nearly half of all recommendations in medical specialty practice guidelines may be based on limited or inconclusive evidence. We sought to describe the proportion of clinical practice guideline recommendations in Emergency Medicine that are based upon expert opinion and low level evidence.MethodsSystematic review of clinical practice guidelines (Clinical Policies) published by the American College of Emergency Physicians from January 1990 to January 2016. Standardized data were abstracted from each Clinical Policy including the number and level of recommendations as well as the reported class of evidence. Primary outcomes were the proportion of Level C equivalent recommendations and Class III equivalent evidence. The primary analysis was limited to current Clinical Policies, while secondary analysis included all Clinical Policies.ResultsA total of 54 Clinical Policies including 421 recommendations and 2801 cited references, with an average of 7.8 recommendations and 52 references per guideline were included. Of 19 current Clinical Policies, 13 of 141 (9.2%) recommendations were Level A, 57 (40.4%) Level B, and 71 (50.4%) Level C. Of 845 references in current Clinical Policies, 67 (7.9%) were Class I, 272 (32.3%) Class II, and 506 (59.9%) Class III equivalent. Among all Clinical Policies, 200 (47.5%) recommendations were Level C equivalent, and 1371 (48.9%) of references were Class III equivalent.ConclusionsEmergency medicine clinical practice guidelines are largely based on lower classes of evidence and a majority of recommendations are expert opinion based. Emergency medicine appears to suffer from an evidence gap that should be prioritized in the national research agenda and considered by policymakers prior to developing future quality standards.

Project description:BackgroundSustainability of adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) represents an important indicator of the successful implementation in the primary care setting.AimTo explore the sustainability of primary care providers' adherence to CPGs after receiving planned guideline implementation strategies, activities, or programmes.MethodsCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); EMBase; Joanna Briggs Institute; Journals@Ovid; Medline; PsycoINFO; PubMed, and Web of Science were searched from January 2000 through May 2021 to identify relevant studies. Studies evaluating the sustainability of primary care providers' (PCPs') adherence to CPGs in primary care after any planned guideline implementation strategies, activities, or programmes were included. Two reviewers extracted data from the included studies and assessed methodological quality independently. Narrative synthesis of the findings was conducted.ResultsEleven studies were included. These studies evaluated the sustainability of adherence to CPGs related to drug prescribing, disease management, cancer screening, and hand hygiene in primary care. Educational outreach visits, teaching sessions, reminders, audit and feedback, and printed materials were utilized in the included studies as guideline implementation strategies. None of the included studies utilized purpose-designed measurements to evaluate the extent of sustainability. Three studies showed positive sustainability results, three studies showed mixed sustainability results, and four studies reported no significant changes in the sustainability of adherence to CPGs. Overall, it was difficult to quantify the extent to which CPG-based healthcare behaviours were fully sustained based on the variety of results reported in the included studies.ConclusionCurrent guideline implementation strategies may potentially improve the sustainability of PCPs' adherence to CPGs. However, the literature reveals a limited body of evidence for any given guideline implementation strategy. Further research, including the development of a validated purpose-designed sustainability tool, is required to address this important clinical issue.Trial registrationThe study protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (No. CRD42021259748 ).

Dataset Information

Global emergency care clinical practice guidelines: A landscape analysis.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

Global emergency care clinical practice guidelines: A landscape analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets