Dataset Information

Towards a new model for producing evidence-based guidelines: a qualitative study of current approaches and opportunities for innovation among Australian guideline developers.

ABSTRACT: Background: Many organisations in Australia undertake systematic reviews to inform development of evidence-based guidelines or would like to do so. However, the substantial resources required to produce systematic reviews limit the feasibility of evidence-based approaches to guideline development. We are working with Australian guideline developers to design, build and test systems that make creating evidence-based guidelines easier and more efficient. Methods: To understand the evidence needs of guideline developers and to inform the development of potential tools and services, we conducted 16 semi-structured interviews with Australian guideline developers. Developers were involved in different types of guidelines, represented both new and established guideline groups, and had access to widely different levels of resources. Results: All guideline developers recognised the importance of having access to timely evidence to support their processes, but were frequently overwhelmed by the scale of this task. Groups developing new guidelines often underestimated the time, expertise and work involved in completing searching and screening. Many were grappling with the challenge of updating and were keen to explore alternatives to the blanket updating of the full guideline. Horizon-scanning and evidence signalling were seen as providing more pragmatic approaches to updating, although some were wary of challenges posed by receiving evidence on a too-frequent basis. Respondents were aware that new technologies, such as machine learning, offered potentially large time and resource savings. Conclusions: As well as the constant challenge of managing financial constraints, Australian guideline developers seeking to develop clinical guidelines face several critical challenges. These include acquiring appropriate methodological expertise, investing in information technology, coping with the proliferation of research output, feasible publication and dissemination options, and keeping guidance up to date.

SUBMITTER: McDonald S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6738187 | biostudies-other | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Towards a new model for producing evidence-based guidelines: a qualitative study of current approaches and opportunities for innovation among Australian guideline developers.

McDonald Steve S Elliott Julian H JH Green Sally S Turner Tari T

F1000Research 20190624

<b>Background:</b> Many organisations in Australia undertake systematic reviews to inform development of evidence-based guidelines or would like to do so. However, the substantial resources required to produce systematic reviews limit the feasibility of evidence-based approaches to guideline development. We are working with Australian guideline developers to design, build and test systems that make creating evidence-based guidelines easier and more efficient. <b>Methods:</b> To understand the ev ...[more]

PMID: 31543956

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMemory clinics (MCs) play a key role in accurate and timely diagnoses and treatment of dementia and mild cognitive impairment. However, within Australia, there are little data available on current practices in MCs, which hinder international comparisons for best practice, harmonisation efforts and national coordination. Here, we aimed to characterise current service profiles of Australian MCs.MethodsThe 'Australian Dementia Network Survey of Expert Opinion on Best Practice and the Current Clinical Landscape' was conducted between August-September 2020 as part of a larger-scale Delphi process deployed to develop national MC guidelines. In this study, we report on the subset of questions pertaining to current practice including wait-times and post-diagnostic care.ResultsResponses were received from 100 health professionals representing 60 separate clinics (45 public, 11 private, and 4 university/research clinics). The majority of participants were from clinics in metropolitan areas (79%) and in general were from high socioeconomic areas. While wait-times varied, only 28.3% of clinics were able to offer an appointment within 1-2 weeks for urgent referrals, with significantly more private clinics (58.3%) compared to public clinics (19.5%) being able to do so. Wait-times were less than 8 weeks for 34.5% of non-urgent referrals. Only 20.0 and 30.9% of clinics provided cognitive interventions or post-diagnostic support respectively, with 7.3% offering home-based reablement programs, and only 12.7% offering access to group-based education. Metropolitan clinics utilised neuropsychological assessments for a broader range of cases and were more likely to offer clinical trials and access to research opportunities.ConclusionsIn comparison to similar countries with comprehensive government-funded public healthcare systems (i.e., United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada), wait-times for Australian MCs are long, and post-diagnostic support or evidence-based strategies targeting cognition are not common practice. The timely and important results of this study highlight a need for Australian MCs to adopt a more holistic service of multidisciplinary assessment and post-diagnostic support, as well as the need for the number of Australian MCs to be increased to match the rising number of dementia cases.

Project description:BackgroundWound classification systems are useful tools to characterise diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU) and are utilised for the purpose of clinical assessment, to promote effective communication between health professionals, and to support clinical audit and benchmarking. Australian guidelines regarding wound classification in patients with DFU are outdated. We aimed to adapt existing international guidelines for wound classification to develop new evidence-based Australian guidelines for wound classification in people with diabetes and DFU.MethodsRecommended NHRMC procedures were followed to adapt suitable International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines on wound classification to the Australian health context. Five IWGDF wound classification recommendations were evaluated and assessed according to the ADAPTE and GRADE systems. We compared our judgements with IWGDF judgements to decide if recommendations should be adopted, adapted or excluded in an Australian context. We re-evaluated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendation ratings, provided justifications for the recommendation and outlined any special considerations for implementation, subgroups, monitoring and future research in an Australian setting.ResultsAfter the five recommendations from the IWGDF 2019 guidelines on the classification of DFUs were evaluated by the panel, two were adopted and three were adapted to be more suitable for Australia. The main reasons for adapting, were to align the recommendations to existing Australian standards of care, especially in specialist settings, to maintain consistency with existing recommendations for documentation, audit and benchmarking and to be more appropriate, acceptable and applicable to an Australian context. In Australia, we recommend the use of the SINBAD system as a minimum standard to document the characteristics of a DFU for the purposes of communication among health professionals and for regional/national/international audit. In contrast to the IWGDF who recommend against usage, in Australia we recommend caution in the use of existing wound classification systems to provide an individual prognosis for a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer.ConclusionsWe have developed new guidelines for wound classification for people with diabetes and a foot ulcer that are appropriate and applicable for use across diverse care settings and geographical locations in Australia.

Project description:BackgroundPeripheral artery disease (PAD) is implicated in up to 50% of diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU) and significantly contributes to morbidity and mortality in this population. An evidence-based guideline that is relevant to the national context including consideration of the unique geographical and health care system differences between Australia and other countries, and delivery of culturally safe care to First Nations people, is urgently required to improve outcomes for patients with PAD and DFU in Australia. We aimed to identify and adapt current international guidelines for diagnosis and management of patients with PAD and DFU to develop an updated Australian guideline.MethodsUsing a panel of national content experts and the National Health and Medical Research Council procedures, the 2019 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines were adapted to the Australian context. The guideline adaptation frameworks ADAPTE and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were applied to the IWGDF guideline for PAD by the expert panel. Recommendations were then adopted, adapted or excluded, and specific considerations for implementation, population subgroups, monitoring and future research in Australia were developed with accompanying clinical pathways provided to support guideline implementation.ResultsOf the 17 recommendations from the IWGDF Guideline on diagnosis, prognosis and management of PAD in patients with diabetes with and without foot ulcers, 16 were adopted for the Australian guideline and one recommendation was adapted due to the original recommendation lacking feasibility in the Australian context. In Australia we recommend all people with diabetes and DFU undergo clinical assessment for PAD with accompanying bedside testing. Further vascular imaging and possible need for revascularisation should be considered for all patients with non-healing DFU irrespective of bedside results. All centres treating DFU should have expertise in, and/or rapid access to facilities necessary to diagnose and treat PAD, and should provide multidisciplinary care post-operatively, including implementation of intensive cardiovascular risk management.ConclusionsA guideline containing 17 recommendations for the diagnosis and management of PAD for Australian patients with DFU was developed with accompanying clinical pathways. As part of the adaptation of the IWGDF guideline to the Australian context, recommendations are supported by considerations for implementation, monitoring, and future research priorities, and in relation to specific subgroups including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and geographically remote people. This manuscript has been published online in full with the authorisation of Diabetes Feet Australia and can be found on the Diabetes Feet Australia website: https://www.diabetesfeetaustralia.org/new-guidelines/ .

Dataset Information

Towards a new model for producing evidence-based guidelines: a qualitative study of current approaches and opportunities for innovation among Australian guideline developers.

Publications

Towards a new model for producing evidence-based guidelines: a qualitative study of current approaches and opportunities for innovation among Australian guideline developers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure