Dataset Information

From guideline to daily practice: Implementation of ESC-guidelines considering multidisciplinary and non-pharmacological care in heart failure in three ESC member states, a case study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

To alleviate the burden of Heart Failure (HF), the European Society of cardiology developed guidelines (ESC-guidelines) to optimise HF-diagnosis and treatment. These guidelines state that optimal HF-care is organised in a multidisciplinary programme in which pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment is offered. Research has proven that multidisciplinary programmes and effective self-care behaviour significantly reduce HF-mortality and (re)hospitalisation, yet little is known about implementation of these ESC-guidelines. Therefore, the INTERACT study investigated current HF-care processes and guideline adherence in three North-West European regions: Maastricht (the Netherlands), Aachen (Germany) and Noorder-Kempen (Belgium).

Methods

A case-study approach was adopted to study local implementation of ESC-guidelines considering non-pharmacological- and multidisciplinary care. National guidelines and local protocols were collected and studied to investigate the level of agreement with and implementation of ESC-guidelines. A matrix was developed to analyse the content of national and local guidelines and protocols in terms of non-pharmacological and multidisciplinary care.

Results

All national organisations promote ESC guidelines, and some developed additional national guidelines. In region A, B and C patients receive multidisciplinary care in hospital based HF-outpatient clinics. Moreover, region B and C patients benefit from either structural (region B) or project based (region C) integrated care, in which specialist- and primary care work together to provide seamless care for HF-patients. However, in region A this seamless integrated care remains to be implemented.

Conclusion

Although ESC-guidelines recommend clearly considering Multidisciplinary- and non-pharmacological care implementation may differ between regions.

SUBMITTER: Baldewijns K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8793368 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Depression affects over 300 million individuals worldwide and is responsible for most of the 800,000 annual suicides. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treatment of depression, founded on scientific evidence, are essential to improve patient care. However, economic and sociocultural factors may influence CPG elaboration, potentially leading to divergences in their recommendations. Consequently, we analyzed pharmacological recommendations for the treatment of depression from the most relevant CPGs. We included four CPGs with scores ? 80% for Domain 3 (rigor of development) on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation and two other commonly used CPGs. The recommendations, their strengths, and the level of evidence were extracted from each CPG by two independent researchers and grouped as follows: (1) general recommendations for the pharmacological treatment for depression (suicide risk, acute treatment, continuation and maintenance phases, and treatment discontinuation); (2) treatment of non-responsive or partially responsive patients; and (3) treatment for subtypes of depression (chronic, psychotic, catatonic, melancholic, seasonal, somatic, mixed, and atypical). Only 50% of CPGs included recommendations for the risk of suicide associated with pharmacotherapy. All CPGs included serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as first-line treatment; however, one CPG also included agomelatine, milnacipran, and mianserin as first-line alternatives. Recommendations for depression subtypes (catatonic, atypical, melancholic) were included in three CPGs. The strength of recommendation and level of evidence clearly differed among CPGs, especially regarding treatment augmentation strategies. We conclude that, although CPGs converged in some recommendations (e.g., SSRIs as first-line treatment), they diverged in cardinal topics including the absence of recommendations regarding the risk of suicide associated with pharmacotherapy. Consequently, the recommendations listed in a specific CPG should be followed with caution.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2016 the first African emergency care clinical practice guideline (CPG) was developed for national uptake in the prehospital sector in South Africa, with implementation starting in 2018. Comprehensive uptake of CPGs post development is not a given, as this requires effective and efficient dissemination and implementation strategies that take into account the perceptions, barriers and facilitators of the local end-users. This study aimed to identify prehospital end-users' perceptions of the emergency care guidelines, including barriers and facilitators for national decision makers, to strengthen CPG uptake in South Africa.MethodsOur study employed a descriptive qualitative research design, including nine focus groups with 56 operational emergency care providers across four major provinces in South Africa. Data was analysed using thematic analysis in ATLAS.ti. Ethics approval was provided by Stellenbosch University.ResultsThemes related to provider perceptions, expectations and guideline uptake emerging from the data was unofficial and unclear communication, broadening versus limiting guideline expectations, conflicted personal reactions and spreading the word. Challenges to dissemination and implementation included poor communication, changes to scope of practice, and limited capacity to upskill existing providers. Facilitators included using technology for end-user documents, local champions to support change, establishing online and modular training, and implementation by independent decision makers.ConclusionThis study provides an overview of the perceptions of operational emergency care providers and how their experiences of hearing about and engaging with the guidelines, in their industry, can contribute to the dissemination, implementation and uptake of emergency care guidelines. In order to disseminate and implement an emergency care CPG, decision makers must take into account the perceptions, barriers, and facilitators of local end-users.