Dataset Information

A Comparison of National Pediatric Procedures Training Guidelines With Actual Clinical Practice in Ohio.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and Pediatrics Review Committee (RC) recommends the clinical procedures residents should master during their training. These guidelines may be partially based on consensus opinion or tradition rather than actual need. The literature defining which procedures general pediatricians actually perform in practice is limited.

Objective

Our objective was to determine how often general pediatricians perform procedures recommended by accreditation bodies, how well prepared they feel to perform them, and how important the procedures are to their practice.

Methods

We categorized recommended procedures as emergent, urgent, or office-based, then developed and administered a survey in 2017 based on these classes. We randomly sampled and polled 439 general pediatricians from urban, suburban, or rural regions across central Ohio. Responses were compared using the Welch ANOVA, Mann Whitney U, and post-hoc tests.

Results

The response rate was 60% (265 of 439). Pediatricians almost never performed 11 of 13 recommended procedures, yet felt well prepared to perform them all and believed that all were important. Rural pediatricians performed significantly more emergent and office-based procedures and rated them as more important. Commonly performed non-ACGME/RC procedures were circumcision, wart removal, cerumen removal, umbilical cauterization, and suture removal.

Conclusions

Findings suggest that pediatricians rarely perform most of the recommended procedures, but think they are important. There are several office-based non-ACGME recommended procedures that pediatricians commonly perform. Regional differences suggest the need for customized training based on future practice plans.

SUBMITTER: Iyer MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6476089 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:This report presents updated National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines summarizing quality requirements for the use of tumor markers. METHODS:One subcommittee developed guidelines for analytical quality relevant to serum and tissue-based tumor markers in current clinical practice. Two other subcommittees formulated recommendations particularly relevant to the developing technologies of microarrays and mass spectrometry. RESULTS:Prerequisites for optimal use of tumor markers in routine practice include formulation of the correct clinical questions to ensure selection of the appropriate test, adherence to good clinical and laboratory practices (e.g., minimization of the risk of incorrect patient and/or specimen identification, tube type, or timing), use of internationally standardized and well-characterized methods, careful adherence to manufacturer instructions, and proactive and timely reactions to information derived from both internal QC and proficiency-testing specimens. Highly desirable procedures include those designed to minimize the risk of the reporting of erroneous results attributable to interferences such as heterophilic antibodies or hook effects, to facilitate the provision of informative clinical reports (e.g., cumulative and/or graphical reports, appropriately derived reference intervals, and interpretative comments), and when possible to integrate these reports with other patient information through electronic health records. Also mandatory is extensive validation encompassing all stages of analysis before introduction of new technologies such as microarrays and mass spectrometry. Provision of high-quality tumor marker services is facilitated by dialogue involving researchers, diagnostic companies, clinical and laboratory users, and regulatory agencies. CONCLUSIONS:Implementation of these recommendations, adapted to local practice, should encourage optimization of the clinical use of tumor markers.