scholarly journals Quality Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Comprehensive Patient Assessment in Emergency Care: A National Cross-sectional Survey

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Åsa Falchenberg ◽  
Ulf Andersson ◽  
Birgitta Wireklint Sundström ◽  
Anders Bremer ◽  
Henrik Andersson
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Emergency Care ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Patient Assessment ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Patient Assessments

Abstract Background Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide guidance for emergency care clinicians to perform patient assessments. Neglecting CPGs may lead to incomplete or fragmented assessments and cause ad-verse events. However, it is important for CPGs to be evidence based, and patient assessments must be conducted in such a manner that high levels of patient safety can be achieved. The aim of this study was to explore and evaluate the quality of emergency medical services (EMS) and emer-gency departments (EDs) CPGs for comprehensive patient assessments. Methods A national cross-sectional design was used, and the listed managers from 97 organizations (25 EMS and 72 EDs) were contacted, covering all 20 Swedish county councils. Fifteen guidelines were ap-praised using the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Results The results revealed that none of the CPGs outlined a comprehensive patient assessment. The main characteristic of the CPGs was their focus on the medical assessment of patients with life-threatening conditions, mostly based on initial assessment and the A-E principle (airway, breathing, circulation, disability, and exposure). According to the AGREE II analysis, the overall quality of the guidelines was poor. CPGs lacked scientific support, underlying evidence, descriptions of how that evidence was collected, and explanations of the criteria used for CPG development. Conclusions This research indicated that there were no Swedish CPGs with comprehensive patient assessments in emergency care and that the foundation for evidence-based CPGs for comprehensive patient assessments was weak.

Clinical practice guidelines for comprehensive patient assessment in emergency care: A quality evaluation study

2021 ◽  
pp. 205715852110069
Author(s):  
Åsa Falchenberg ◽  
Ulf Andersson ◽  
Birgitta Wireklint Sundström ◽  
Anders Bremer ◽  
Henrik Andersson
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Emergency Care ◽  
Quality Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Study ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Patient Assessment ◽  
Care Needs ◽  
Home Based

Emergency care nurses (ECNs) face several challenges when they assess patients with different symptoms, signs, and conditions to determine patients’ care needs. Patients’ care needs do not always originate from physical or biomedical dysfunctions. To provide effective patient-centred care, ECNs must be sensitive to patients’ unique medical, physical, psychological, social, and existential needs. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide guidance for ECNs in such assessments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of CPGs for comprehensive patient assessments in emergency care. A quality evaluation study was conducted in Sweden in 2017. Managers from 97 organizations (25 emergency medical services and 72 emergency departments) were contacted, covering all 20 Swedish county councils. Fifteen guidelines were appraised using the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. The results revealed that various CPGs are used in emergency care, but none of the CPGs support ECNs in performing a comprehensive patient assessment; rather, the CPGs address parts of the assessment primarily related to biomedical needs. The results also demonstrate that the foundation for evidence-based CPGs is weak and cannot confirm that an ECN has the prerequisites to assess patients and refer them to treatment, such as home-based self-care. This may indicate that Swedish emergency care services utilize non-evidence-based guidelines. This implies that ECN managers and educators should actively seek more effective ways of highlighting and safeguarding patients’ various care needs using more comprehensive guidelines.

scholarly journals Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for preoperative care: a systematic review.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agustín Ciapponi ◽  
Tapia-López Elena ◽  
Virgilio Sacha ◽  
Ariel Bardach
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Moderate Quality

Abstract Background Our aim was to summarize and compare relevant recommendations from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs). Methods Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Data sources: PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase and additional sources. In July 2017, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and also searched specific CPG sources, reference lists and consulted experts. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. Results We included 16 EB-CPGs out of 2262 references identified. Only nine of them had searches within the last five years and seven used GRADE. The median (percentile 25-75) AGREE-II scores for rigor of development was 49% (35-76%) and the domain ‘applicability’ obtained the worst score: 16% (9-31%). We summarized 31 risk stratification recommendations, 21.6% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (75.7% strong). We found inconsistency in ratings of evidence level. ‘Guidelines’ applicability’ and ‘monitoring’ were the most deficient domains. Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past five years. Conclusions We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation as well as others to be interrupted, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines’ quality.

scholarly journals Assessment of the Quality of Recommendations from 161 Clinical Practice Guidelines Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation – Recommendations Excellence (AGREE-REX) Instrument Shows There Is Room for Improvement

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan D Florez ◽  
Melissa C Brouwers ◽  
Kate Kerkvliet ◽  
Karen Spithoff ◽  
Pablo Alonso-Coello ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Response Scale ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Cross Sectional

Abstract Background: A new tool, the AGREE-REX, was recently developed to support the development, reporting, and assessment of clinical practice guidelines’ (CPGs) recommendations, and to complement the AGREE II tool. We assessed the credibility and implementability of 161 CPGs recommendations using the AGREE-REX draft tool. Methods: Cross sectional study. CPGs were assessed by two independent appraisers using the AGREE-REX draft tool. The CPGs were rated with the tool’s 7-point response scale for each item. Differences between CPGs according to country, year and type of organization (government-supported/professional society) were evaluated. One-way ANOVA tests were used to examine differences in the score. Results: Recommendations from 161 CPGs from 70 organizations were appraised by 322 participants from 51 countries, using the AGREE-REX draft tool. The total overall average score of the recommendations was 4.23 (standard deviation(SD)=1.14). AGREE-REX items that scored the highest were (mean; SD): Evidence (5.51; SD=1.14), Clinical relevance (5.95; SD=0.8), and Patients/population relevance (4.87; SD=1.33), while the lowest scores were observed for the Policy values (3.44; SD=1.53), Local applicability (3,56; SD=1.47) and Resources, tools and capacity (3.49; SD=1.44) items. CPGs developed by government-supported organizations and developed in the UK and Canada had significantly higher recommendation quality scores with the AGREE-REX tool (p=0.01) than their comparators.Conclusions: We found that there is significant room for improvement of some CPGs such as the considerations of patient/population values, policy values, local applicability and resources, tools and capacity. These findings may be considered a baseline upon which to measure future improvements in the quality of CPGs.Contribution to the literature· We applied the AGREE II and the recently developed tool (AGREE-REX draft version), to assess quality, credibility and implementability of 161 international clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The AGREE REX draft tool was applied by 322 guidelines’ developers, users and researchers from 51 countries.· The scores of the AGREE REX draft tool items were higher in those items related to the quality of the evidence and the clinical relevance. The items related to patients and population relevance and implementation relevance scored in the mid-range, while the items related to patients/population or policy values, the alignment of values, the local applicability, and the resouces, tools and capacity items scored low.· CPGs produced by government-supported organizations scored higher on all the items of the AGREE-REX draft tool than those produced by professional societies or other types of groups, and CPGs produced in United Kingdom and Canada scored higher in selected items in comparison to United States and international CPGs· The correlations between the overall AGREE-REX draft tool and AGREE II domains were low, except for the Applicability domain where the correlation was modest.

scholarly journals Overview of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for difficult airway management in adults: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agustín Ciapponi ◽  
Lucas Perelli ◽  
Hernán Cohen-Arazi ◽  
GErmán Solioz ◽  
Ariel Bardach
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Difficult Airway ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Moderate Quality

Abstract Background : The aim of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in the management of difficult airway is to provide optimal responses to a potentially life-threatening clinical problem.Objective : to summarize and compare relevant recommendations and algorithms from evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs).Methods : We conducted a systematic review (overview) of CPGs, following Cochrane methods. We summarized recommendations, its supporting evidence and strength of recommendations according to the GRADE methodology. In July 2018, we searched CPGs that were published in the last 10 years, without language restrictions, in electronic databases, and searched specific CPG sources, reference lists and consulted experts. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Tripdatabase and additional sources. Pairs of independent reviewers selected EB-CPGs and rated their methodological quality using the AGREE-II instrument. We included those EB-CPGs reporting standard methods for identification, data collection, study risk of bias assessment and recommendations’ level of evidence. Discrepancies were solved by consensus.Results: We included 11 EB-CPGs out of 2505 references identified in literature searches within the last ten years. Only three of them used the GRADE system. The domains with better performance in the AGREE-II assessment, were ‘adequate description of scoping’ and ‘objectives’ while those with worst performance were ‘‘Guidelines’ applicability’ and ‘monitoring’. As a result, only three EB-CPGs were classified as ‘Highly recommended, two as ‘Recommended’ and six as ‘Not recommended. We summarized 22 diagnostic recommendations, 22% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (41% of them were considered by developers as strong recommendations), and 16 therapeutic/preventive recommendations, 59% of which were supported by high/moderate quality of evidence (76% strong). Only half of the EB-CPGs were updated in the past five years.Conclusions : The main EB-CPGs in the management of difficult airway in anesthesia presented significant heterogeneity in terms of their quality and system of grading the evidence and strength of recommendation used, and most used their own systems. We present many strong recommendations that are ready to be considered for implementation, and we reveal opportunities to improve guidelines’ quality.

scholarly journals Antenatal magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection: a critical appraisal and systematic review of clinical practice guidelines

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 262-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pradeep M. Jayaram ◽  
Manoj K. Mohan ◽  
Ibrahim Farid ◽  
Stephen Lindow
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Magnesium Sulfate ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Fetal Neuroprotection ◽  
Agree Ii Tool

Abstract Background Magnesium sulfate is an accepted intervention for fetal neuroprotection. There are some perceived differences in the international recommendations on the use magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection in preterm labor. Content This systematic review analyses the available clinical guidelines for the use of magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection and compares the recommendations, and assesses the quality of guidelines. This provides the consensus, differences and explores the areas for future collaborative research. We searched databases of PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, Web of Science, LILACS; and included the national and the international clinical practice guidelines. We included seven guidelines out of 227 search results. We evaluated the methodological quality of guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool and systematically extracted guideline characters, recommendation and supporting evidence base. Summary Five guidelines were of high quality and two were of moderate quality. One guideline achieved more than an 80% score in all the domains of AGREE II tool. All guidelines recommend use of magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection. However, there are differences in other recommendations such as upper gestational age, dose, duration, repeating treatment and use of additional tocolytics. Outlook Future guidelines should include recommendations on all aspects of magnesium sulfate therapy for fetal neuroprotection. Future research and international collaboration should focus on areas where there are no international consensual recommendations.

scholarly journals Assessment of the methodological quality of local clinical practice guidelines on the identification and management of gestational diabetes

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e027285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Daley ◽  
Graham Hitman ◽  
Norman Fenton ◽  
Scott McLachlan
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Agree Ii

ObjectiveGestational diabetes is the most common metabolic disorder of pregnancy, and it is important that well-written clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are used to optimise healthcare delivery and improve patient outcomes. The aim of the study was to assess the methodological quality of hospital-based CPGs on the identification and management of gestational diabetes.DesignWe conducted an assessment of local clinical guidelines in English for gestational diabetes using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) to assess and validate methodological quality.Data sources and eligibility criteriaWe sought a representative selection of local CPGs accessible by the internet. Criteria for inclusion were (1) identified as a guideline, (2) written in English, (3) produced by or for the hospital in a Western country, (4) included diagnostic criteria and recommendations concerning gestational diabetes, (5) grounded on evidence-based medicine and (6) accessible over the internet. No more than two CPGs were selected from any single country.ResultsOf the 56 CPGs identified, 7 were evaluated in detail by five reviewers using the standard AGREE II instrument. Interrater variance was calculated, with strong agreement observed for those protocols considered by reviewers as the highest and lowest scoring based on the instrument. CPG results for each of the six AGREE II domains are presented categorically using a 5-point Likert scale. Only one CPG scored above average in five or more of the domains. Overall scores ranged from 91.6 (the strongest) to 50 (the weakest). Significant variation existed in the methodological quality of CPGs, even though they followed the guideline of an advising body. Specifically, appropriate identification of the evidence relied on to inform clinical decision making in CPGs was poor, as was evidence of user involvement in the development of the guideline, resource implications, documentation of competing interests of the guideline development group and evidence of external review.ConclusionsThe limitations described are important considerations for updating current and new CPGs.

scholarly journals Critical appraisal and comparison of recommendations of clinical practice guidelines for treatment of schizophrenia in children and adolescents: a methodological survey protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e038646
Author(s):  
Maíra Ramos Alves ◽  
Cristiane de Cássia Bergamaschi ◽  
Flávia Blaseck Sorrilha ◽  
Izabela Fulone ◽  
Silvio Barberato-Filho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Future Research ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Over Time

IntroductionThe number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have increased substantially mainly in the paediatric area of mental health. However, little is known about the quality or how recommendations for the treatment of disorders such as schizophrenia in children and adolescents have changed over time. The aim of this study will be to assess the quality of the development of CPGs for the treatment and management of schizophrenia in children and adolescents over time using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool and to compare the recommendations and interventions described in these documents.Methods and analysisCPGs will be identified using a prospective protocol through a systematic search of multiple databases (Medline, Embase, Health Systems Evidence, Epistemonikos, Lilacs, etc) and guideline websites from 2004 to December 2020. The quality of the guidelines will be assessed by three reviewers, independently using the AGREE II. CPGs will be considered of high-quality if they scored ≥60% in four or more domains of the AGREE II instrument. Non-parametric tests will be used to test for the change of quality over time. We will summarise the different evidence grading systems and compare the recommendations.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required since it is a literature-based study. Future results of the research can be submitted for publication in scientific journals of high impact, peer reviewed and also published in national and international conferences. The results derived from this study will contribute to the improvement of health institutions and policies, informing about existing recommendation guidelines and about deficiencies and qualities found in those. This study may also identify key areas for future research. This study may guide the search and choice for high quality CPGs by health policy makers and health professionals and subsidise future adaptations.Protocol registration numberCRD42020164899.

scholarly journals The structure of the quality of clinical practice guidelines with the items and overall assessment in AGREE II: a regression analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yosuke Hatakeyama ◽  
Kanako Seto ◽  
Rebeka Amin ◽  
Takefumi Kitazawa ◽  
Shigeru Fujita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Domain 3 ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Background The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II has been widely used to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). While the relationship between the overall assessment of CPGs and scores of six domains were reported in previous studies, the relationship between items constituting these domains and the overall assessment has not been analyzed. This study aims to investigate the relationship between the score of each item and the overall assessment and identify items that could influence the overall assessment. Methods All Japanese CPGs developed using the evidence-based medicine method and published from 2011 to 2015 were used. They were independently evaluated by three appraisers using AGREE II. The evaluation results were analyzed using regression analysis to evaluate the influence of 6 domains and 23 items on the overall assessment. Results A total of 206 CPGs were obtained. All domains and all items except one were significantly correlated to the overall assessment. Regression analysis revealed that Domain 3 (Rigour of Development), Domain 4 (Clarity of Presentation), Domain 5 (Applicability), and Domain 6 (Editorial Independence) had influence on the overall assessment. Additionally, four items of AGREE II, clear selection of evidence (Item 8), specific/unambiguous recommendations (Item 15), advice/tools for implementing recommendations (Item 19), and conflicts of interest (Item 22), significantly influenced the overall assessment and explained 72.1% of the variance. Conclusions These four items may highlight the areas for improvement in developing CPGs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document