P12 Management of acute epididymo-orchitis: ad hoc or evidence based?

2015 ◽  
Vol 91 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A19.3-A20
Author(s):  
Thomas Stonier ◽  
Philip Gardner ◽  
Rohit Srinivasan ◽  
David Curry ◽  
Paras Singh
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (19) ◽  
pp. 4438
Author(s):  
Daniela Haluza ◽  
David Jungwirth ◽  
Susanne Gahbauer

Developed in the pre-internet era in the early 1980s, empirical medical practice, i.e., evidence-based practice (EBP) has become crucial in critical thinking and statistical reasoning at the point-of-care. As little evidence is available so far on how EBP is perceived in the Austrian academic context, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey among a nonrandom purposive sample of employees and students at the Medical University Vienna, Austria (total n = 1247, 59.8% females). The German questionnaire assessed both EBP capability beliefs and EBP use, with the respective indices both yielding good internal consistency. We conducted subgroup comparisons between employees (n = 638) and students (n = 609). In line with Bandura’s self-efficacy theory, we found a correlation between EBP capability beliefs and EBP use, with higher scores reported in the employee group. The results indicated that the participants did not strictly follow the sequential EBP steps as grounded in the item-response theory. Since its emergence, EBP has struggled to overcome the dominating traditional way of conducting medicine, which is also known as eminence-based medicine, where ad hoc decisions are based upon expert opinions, and nowadays frequently supplemented by quick online searches. Medical staff and supervisors of medical students should be aware of the existing overlaps and synergies of these potentially equivalent factors in clinical care. There is a need for intensifying the public and scientific debate on how to deal with the divergence between EBP theory and EBP practice.


2020 ◽  
pp. 095207672090501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Cairney

I describe a policy theory story in which a decentred state results from choice and necessity. Governments often choose not to centralise policymaking but they would not succeed if they tried. Many policy scholars take this story for granted, but it is often ignored in other academic disciplines and wider political debate. Instead, commentators call for more centralisation to deliver more accountable, ‘rational,’ and ‘evidence-based’ policymaking. Such contradictory arguments, about the feasibility and value of government centralisation, raise an ever-present dilemma for governments to accept or challenge decentring. They also accentuate a modern dilemma about how to seek ‘evidence-based policymaking’ in a decentred state. I identify three ideal-type ways in which governments can address both dilemmas consistently. I then identify their ad hoc use by UK and Scottish governments. Although each government has a reputation for more or less centralist approaches, both face similar dilemmas and address them in similar ways. Their choices reflect their need to appear to be in control while dealing with the fact that they are not.


2019 ◽  
Vol 104 (7) ◽  
pp. e2.48-e2
Author(s):  
Sarit Shah

IntroductionStudies and research have shown that providing patient education through knowledge and counselling of the disease process and subsequent treatment empower patients and carers to improve patient’s health. Through understanding rationale for treatment, implications of non- compliance, non-adherence, disease progression and adverse effects of therapy, pharmacy staff are perfectly placed to empower patients and carers with evidence based knowledge and information to make their own educated decisions regarding therapy. The ‘Let’s Talk Medicines’ telephone service was set up in 2015 for exactly this purpose. It is a dedicated medicines information (MI) service aimed at patients, parents and carers, giving the opportunity to ask questions and obtain advice from specialist paediatric pharmacists about their child’s medicines once leaving the hospital. The services have vastly expanded over the last 2 and half years with the addition of an email address as an alternative means for contact. The helpline number and email address are heavily publicised to parents and carers through posters throughout the hospital, details published on all paediatric discharge summaries and printed information cards given to all outpatients during counselling.AimTo evaluate the service progression by analysing the sheer volume and types of queries over the last 3 years to identify how beneficial the novel service has proven to be.MethodsTo retrospectively analyse data from 3 monthly reports over the last 2.5 years of the service to identify number of calls, emails, types of queries received and users of the service.ResultsThe current service relies on all members of the pharmacy team answering calls on a dedicated patient line on an ad-hoc basis with several specialist pharmacists reviewing queries on a daily basis. Average call durations were between 5 to 8 minutes with more complex queries requiring in depth data search taking up to 30 minutes. All queries are logged on paper and then reviewed on a monthly basis as they are entered onto a database. Since the introduction of the service, the volume of calls received has increased by more than 50% with average of 35 per month in 2015 and 54 in 2017. Originally, the service was designed primarily for patients, parents and carers. Due to the increased recognition, the service has now been expanded to a variety of internal and external healthcare professionals, community practitioners and pharmacies, drug companies, commissioning staff, researchers and students. The types of queries range from supply issues, procurement of unlicensed medicines, to adverse effects, administration advice and complex pharmaceutical queries.ConclusionThe service has grown and developed with focus based around improving patient care, medication adherence and minimising medicines related risks. Through providing accurate, up-to-date and evidence based information its appeal has reached a wider audience including healthcare professionals. Combined with an increase in the number of calls and technological advances, a new email service has been rolled out in 2017, as an alternate means to contact the service. Direct comments from users of the service has shown positive feedback and trust.


2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Domenico Semisa ◽  
Massimo Casacchia ◽  
Walter Di Munzio ◽  
Giovanni Neri ◽  
Giacinto Buscaglia ◽  
...  

SUMMARYAims– The aim of this work is to present the main discrepancies, as evidenced by the SIEP-DIRECT's Project, between the evidence-based NICE guidelines for schizophrenia and the usual practices of the Italian mental health services in order to promote the recovery of patients with schizophrenia.Methods– Starting from the main NICE recommendations on recovery promotion, 41 indicators were developed. These were experimented in 19 participating Italian Mental Health Departments (MHD) or Psychiatric Services through self-evaluation of the activities carried out to promote patient recovery with the aim of assessing the level of adherence to the recommendations. The data required by most of the indicators were obtained from the psychiatric informative system or from the Direction of the MHD. Moreover, specific research was carried out on the clinical records and on representative patient samples. Furthermore, for 14 indicators, there was requested an assessment by the part of “multidisciplinary” or “specialistic” focus groups who then attributed a score according to a defined “ad hoc” scale.Results– According to the data obtained, although the mental health services seem to care about the physical condition of their patients, they do not routinely examine principle parameters such as blood pressure, glycaemia etc., and collaboration with general practitioners is often complex or not uniformly practiced. Most psychiatrists and psychologists possess the basic communication skills but not enough competences in cognitive-behavioural treatments; such treatments, and every other form of structured individual psychotherapy, are seldom carried out and seem to have become marginal activities within the Services. Also family psycho-educational interventions are under-used. The Services are very active in the care of multi-problem schizophrenia patients, who make up a large percentage (almost a quarter, on average) of the patients in their care. These patients are offered specific and integrated treatment plans with the involvement of other health services and social agencies operating in the territory. The strategies adopted by the services for the pharmacological treatment in the prevention of relapses and for patients with frequent crises or with treatment-resistant schizophrenia are all in line with the NICE recommendations. Finally, the Services promote activities of vocational training and supported employment, but the outcomes of these are often unsatisfactory.Conclusions– The results of the study show a picture of the Italian mental health services with bright yet also dark areas as regards recovery promotion activities. The Services seem to guarantee adequate pharmacological evidence-based treatments, an integrated assistance and good management of multi-problem patients. They have difficulty, however, with respect to the monitoring of the physical health of the patients, psychotherapeutic activities, including those for families, and the promotion of supported employment. Moreover, they still show problems regarding the structuring and formalizing of care processes. To improve this situation, they should make greater use of professional guidelines, protocols and written procedures.Declaration of Interest:None.


2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salvatore Cesario ◽  
Chiara Fredianelli ◽  
Alessandro Remorini
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  

Il volume si propone come una risposta, dal versante psicodinamico, al libro L'approccio evidence-based in psicoterapia. Protocolli di trattamento sperimentalmente validabili, a cura di William Lyddon e John Jones (Jr.) (Milano, McGraw-Hill, 2002). Il lavoro è condotto sulla base di resoconti di altre esperienze di terapie sui generis, il cui genus caratterizzante è consistito nel fatto che i "processi" erano stati, come dire, "inventati" ad hoc (o ad personam); ma anche cercando di definire un "pacchetto" di processi evidence-based utili ai fini del trattamento di un disturbo particolare.


2015 ◽  
Vol 139 (3) ◽  
pp. 394-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto M. Marchevsky ◽  
Mark R. Wick

Context Evidence-based medicine has been proposed as a new paradigm for the identification and evaluation of medical information. Best available evidence or data are identified and used as the basis for the diagnosis and treatment of individual patients. Evidence-based pathology has adapted basic evidence-based medicine concepts to the specific needs of pathology and laboratory medicine. Objectives To briefly review the history and basic concepts of evidence-based medicine and evidence-based pathology, describe how to perform and interpret systematic reviews, and discuss how to integrate best evidence into guidelines. Data Sources PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Washington, DC) and Web of Science (Thompson Reuters, New York, New York) were used. Conclusions Evidence-based pathology provides methodology to evaluate the quality of information published in pathology journals and apply it to the diagnosis of tissue samples and other tests from individual patients. Information is gathered through the use of systematic reviews, using a method that is less biased and more comprehensive than ad hoc literature searches. Published data are classified into evidence levels to provide readers with a quick impression about the quality and probable clinical validity of available information. Best available evidence is combined with personal experience for the formulation of evidence-based, rather than opinion-based, guidelines that address specific practice needs.


2017 ◽  
Vol 55 (11) ◽  
pp. 3183-3193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irving Nachamkin ◽  
Thomas J. Kirn ◽  
Lars F. Westblade ◽  
Romney Humphries

ABSTRACTAs part of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines Committee of the Professional Practice Committee, anad hoccommittee was formed in 2014 to assess guidelines published by the committee using an assessment tool, Appraisal of Guidelines for Research Evaluation II (AGREE II). The AGREE II assessment helps reviewers determine whether published guidelines are robust, transparent, and clear in presenting practice recommendations in a standardized manner. Identifying strengths and weaknesses of practice guidelines byad hocassessments helps with improving future guidelines through the participation of key stakeholders. This minireview describes the development of thead hoccommittee and results from their review of several ASM best practices guidelines and a non-ASM practice guideline from the Emergency Nurses Association.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document