WikiRecs primary care: developing rapid recommendations for primary care through effective collaboration between systematic review and guideline teams

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp18X697085
Author(s):  
Trudy Bekkering ◽  
Bert Aertgeerts ◽  
Ton Kuijpers ◽  
Mieke Vermandere ◽  
Jako Burgers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Urinary Stones ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Supervised Exercise ◽  
Review Team ◽  
New Evidence

BackgroundThe WikiRecs evidence summaries and recommendations for clinical practice are developed using trustworthy methods. The process is triggered by studies that may potentially change practice, aiming at implementing new evidence into practice fast.AimTo share our first experiences developing WikiRecs for primary care and to reflect on the possibilities and pitfalls of this method.MethodIn March 2017, we started developing WikiRecs for primary health care to speed up the process of making potentially practice-changing evidence in clinical practice. Based on a well-structured question a systematic review team summarises the evidence using the GRADE approach. Subsequently, an international panel of primary care physicians, methodological experts and patients formulates recommendations for clinical practice. The patient representatives are involved as full guideline panel members. The final recommendations and supporting evidence are disseminated using various platforms, including MAGICapp and scientific journals.ResultsWe are developing WikiRecs on two topics: alpha-blockers for urinary stones and supervised exercise therapy for intermittent claudication. We did not face major problems but will reflect on issues we had to solve so far. We anticipate having the first WikiRecs for primary care available at the end of 2017.ConclusionThe WikiRecs process is a promising method — that is still evolving — to rapidly synthesise and bring new evidence into primary care practice, while adhering to high quality standards.

scholarly journals Socioeconomic inequalities in primary-care and specialist physician visits: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Lena Lueckmann ◽  
Jens Hoebel ◽  
Julia Roick ◽  
Jenny Markert ◽  
Jacob Spallek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Socioeconomic Inequalities ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Physician Visits ◽  
General Adult Population ◽  
Registration Number

Abstract Background Utilization of primary-care and specialist physicians seems to be associated differently with socioeconomic status (SES). This review aims to summarize and compare the evidence on socioeconomic inequalities in consulting primary-care or specialist physicians in the general adult population in high-income countries. Methods We carried out a systematic search across the most relevant databases (Web of Science, Medline) and included all studies, published since 2004, reporting associations between SES and utilization of primary-care and/or specialist physicians. In total, 57 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Results Many studies found socioeconomic inequalities in physician utilization, but inequalities were more pronounced in visiting specialists than primary-care physicians. The results of the studies varied strongly according to the operationalization of utilization, namely whether a physician was visited (probability) or how often a physician was visited (frequency). For probabilities of visiting primary-care physicians predominantly no association with SES was found, but frequencies of visits were higher in the most disadvantaged. The most disadvantaged often had lower probabilities of visiting specialists, but in many studies no link was found between the number of visits and SES. Conclusion This systematic review emphasizes that inequalities to the detriment of the most deprived is primarily a problem in the probability of visiting specialist physicians. Healthcare policy should focus first off on effective access to specialist physicians in order to tackle inequalities in healthcare. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019123222.

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 Systematic Review Investigating Multi-disciplinary Team Approaches to Screening and Early Diagnosis of Dementia in Primary Care – What are the Positive and Negative Effects and Who Should Deliver It?

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toby Smith ◽  
Jane Cross ◽  
Fiona Poland ◽  
Felix Clay ◽  
Abbey Brookes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Early Diagnosis ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Initial Contact ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Early Diagnostic

Background: Primary care services frequently provide the initial contact between people with dementia and health service providers. Early diagnosis and screening programmes have been suggested as a possible strategy to improve the identification of such individuals and treatment and planning health and social care support. Objective: To determine what early diagnostic and screening programmes have been adopted in primary care practice, to explore who should deliver these and to determine the possible positive and negative effects of an early diagnostic and screening programme for people with dementia in primary care. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using published and unpublished research databases. All papers answering our research objectives were included. A narrative analysis of the literature was undertaken, with the CASP tools used appropriately to assess study quality. Results: Thirty-three papers were identified of moderate to high quality. The limited therapeutic options for those diagnosed with dementia means that even if such a programme was instigated, the clinical value remains questionable. Furthermore, accuracy of the diagnosis remains difficult to assess due to poor evidence and this raises questions regarding whether people could be over- or under-diagnosed. Given the negative social and psychological consequences of such a diagnosis, this could be devastating for individuals. Conclusion: Early diagnostic and screening programmes have not been widely adopted into primary care. Until there is rigorous evidence assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of such programmes, there remains insufficient evidence to support the adoption of these programmes in practice.

Abstract 66: Current Attitudes and Practice Patterns of Using New and Emerging Therapies to Manage Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (AF): a National Assessment of Cardiologists and Primary Care Physicians

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory D Salinas ◽  
Caroline O Robinson ◽  
Nancy Roepke ◽  
B. S Burton ◽  
Debi Susalka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Case Vignette ◽  
Independent Evidence ◽  
Patient Chart ◽  
Emerging Therapies ◽  
Chart Audits

Introduction: Stroke prevention is a cornerstone in the management of patients with AF at higher risk for ischemic events. This study assessed physician barriers to management of AF patients, including gaps in clinical knowledge and application of tools and guidelines for reducing stroke risk. Awareness, perception, and confidence in adopting newer anticoagulants were investigated, particularly related to balancing risk with treatment goals, and knowledge sources sought by physicians. Methods: The data for this study, conducted from March 2011 to May 2011, were collected through the use of a nationally-distributed case vignette survey to cardiologists and primary care physicians (PCPs), as well as patient chart audits nested within the physician sample. Each component of this study was reviewed and approved by the Western Institutional Review Board (WIRB). Results: Surveys from 142 cardiologists and 250 PCPs, and 632 patient chart audits, were analyzed. Nearly half of cardiologists and more than 75% of PCPs surveyed identified uncertainty regarding stroke risk assessment and lack of awareness of tools to guide risk assessment as barriers to determining appropriate antithrombotic therapy. Case vignette assessment found that 44% of PCPs familiar with the CHADS2 risk assessment tool were unable to appropriately assign a risk score, and they were less likely than cardiologists (53% vs 85%) to use this tool in clinical practice. Consistent with their greater familiarity, 65% of cardiologists are very confident in using emerging anticoagulants, while only 40% of PCPs have comparable confidence. The most frequently sought and valued resources for information about emerging anticoagulants were clinical practice guidelines, journal articles, CME activities, and communication with physician peers. Conclusion: Knowledge gaps and clinical barriers exist among physicians for stroke risk assessment, anticoagulation management, and use of emerging therapies in patients with AF. Physicians seek independent evidence-based information when deciding how to incorporate new anticoagulants into practice. The data suggest that physicians value education on safety and efficacy of therapies as well as practical guidance on applying clinical data to practice.

Screening and management of cardiovascular disease in Australian adults with HIV infection

Sexual Health ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Chan ◽  
David Gracey ◽  
Michael Bailey ◽  
Deborah Richards ◽  
Brad Dalton
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Hiv Infection ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Cvd Risk ◽  
Online Forms ◽  
Current Screening

Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is common in HIV infection. With no specific Australian guidelines for the screening and management of CVD in HIV-infected patients, best clinical practice is based on data from the general population. We evaluated adherence to these recommendations by primary care physicians who treat HIV-infected patients. Methods: Primary care physicians with a special interest in HIV infection were asked to complete details for at least 10 consecutive patient encounters using structured online forms. This included management practices pertaining to blood pressure (BP), blood glucose, electrocardiogram, lipid profile and CVD risk calculations. We assessed overall adherence to screening and follow-up recommendations as suggested by national and international guidelines. Results: Between May 2009 and March 2010, 43 physicians from 25 centres completed reporting for 530 HIV-infected patients, of whom 93% were male, 25% were aged 41–50 years and 83% were treated with antiretrovirals. Risk factors for CVD were common and included smoking (38%), hyperlipidaemia (16%) and hypertension (28%). In men aged >40 years and women aged >50 years without evidence of ischaemic heart disease, only 14% received a CVD risk assessment. Lipid and BP assessments were performed in 87% and 88% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: This Australian audit provides unique information on the characteristics and management of HIV and CVD in clinical practice. We have found a high burden of risk for CVD in HIV-infected Australians, but current screening and management practices in these patients fall short of contemporary guidelines.

Information Technology in Primary Care Practice in the United States

2011 ◽  
pp. 131-163
Author(s):  
James G. Anderson ◽  
E. Andres Balas
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Information Technology ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
The United States ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
It Applications ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Privacy And Confidentiality

The objective of this study was to assess the current level of information technology used by primary care physicians in the U.S. Primary care physicians listed by the American Medical Association were contacted by e-mail and asked to complete a Web-based questionnaire. A total of 2,145 physicians responded. Overall between 20% and 25% of primary care physicians reported using electronic medical records, e-prescribing, point-of-care decision support tools and electronic communication with patients. This indicates a slow rate of adoption since 2000-2001. Differences in adoption rates suggest that future surveys need to differentiate primary care and office-based physicians by specialty. An important finding is that one-third of the physicians surveyed expressed no interest in the four IT applications. Overcoming this barrier may require efforts by medical specialty societies to educate their members as to the benefits of IT in practice. The majority of physicians perceived benefits of IT, but they cited costs, vendor inability to deliver acceptable products and concerns about privacy and confidentiality as major barriers to implementation of IT applications. Overcoming the cost barrier may require that payers and the federal government share the costs of implementing these IT applications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document