The Flat-Footed Child—To Treat or Not to Treat

2008 ◽  
Vol 98 (5) ◽  
pp. 386-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Margaret Evans

Background: This article addresses the treatment of pediatric flatfoot with foot orthoses and explores the existing knowledge from an evidence-based perspective. Methods: Studies investigating the use of foot orthoses for pediatric flatfoot were reviewed and ranked on the evidence hierarchy model according to research designs. Clinical guidelines and efficacy rating methods were also reviewed. Results: Three randomized controlled trials exist, and a systematic review and possible meta-analysis of these studies is in progress. The results of these studies, although not definitive for the use of orthoses for pediatric flatfoot, provide useful direction. Clinical guidelines for the management of flatfoot are a useful supplement for clinical decision making and have been enhanced. Conclusion: This article presents a pragmatic and evidence-based clinical care pathway for clinicians to use for pediatric flatfoot. It uses a simple “traffic light” framework to identify three subtypes of pediatric flatfoot. The clinician is advised to 1) treat symptomatic pediatric flatfoot, 2) monitor (or with discretion simply treat) asymptomatic nondevelopmental pediatric flatfoot, and 3) identify and advise asymptomatic developmental pediatric flatfoot. (Children with juvenile arthritis should receive customized foot orthoses.) This approach will dispel much of the contention surrounding the use of foot orthoses in children. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 98(5): 386–393, 2008)

Spine ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 169-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Bradywood ◽  
Farrokh Farrokhi ◽  
Barbara Williams ◽  
Mark Kowalczyk ◽  
C. Craig Blackmore

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (05) ◽  
pp. 428-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Turvill ◽  
Shaun O’Connell ◽  
Abigail Brooks ◽  
Karen Bradley-Wood ◽  
James Laing ◽  
...  

BackgroundNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence have recommended faecal calprotectin (FC) testing as an option in adults with lower gastrointestinal symptoms for whom specialist investigations are being considered, if cancer is not suspected and it is used to support a diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or irritable bowel syndrome. York Hospital and Vale of York Clinical Commissioning Group have developed an evidence-based care pathway to support this recommendation for use in primary care. It incorporates a higher FC cut-off value, a ‘traffic light’ system for risk and a clinical management pathway.ObjectivesTo evaluate this care pathway.MethodsThe care pathway was introduced into five primary care practices for a period of six months and the clinical outcomes of patients were evaluated. Negative and positive predictive values (NPV and PPV) were calculated. GP feedback of the care pathway was obtained by means of a web-based survey. Comparator gastroenterology activity in a neighbouring trust was obtained.ResultsThe care pathway for FC in primary care had a 97% NPV and a 40% PPV. This was better than GP clinical judgement alone and doubled the PPV compared with the standard FC cut-off (<50 mcg/g), without affecting the NPV. In total, 89% of patients with IBD had an FC>250 mcg/g and were diagnosed by ‘straight to test’ colonoscopy within three weeks. The care pathway was considered helpful by GPs and delivered a higher diagnostic yield after secondary care referral (21%) than the conventional comparator pathway (5%).ConclusionsA care pathway for the use of FC that incorporates a higher cut-off value, a ‘traffic light’ system for risk and supports clinical decision making can be achieved safely and effectively. It maintains the balance between a high NPV and an acceptable PPV. A modified care pathway for the use of FC in primary care is proposed.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4678-4678
Author(s):  
Jennifer Yui ◽  
Scott A. Peslak ◽  
David Lambert ◽  
Eric Russell ◽  
Farzana Sayani

BACKGROUND Painful vaso-occlusive crises (VOC) are the most common reason for acute care utilization in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), and the emergency department (ED) is often the site of initial management and treatment. Treatment guidelines recommend initiation of analgesia with parenteral opioids within 30 minutes of presentation, timely reassessment of pain, and additional opioids as needed every 15-30 minutes. These targets are infrequently met, resulting in uncontrolled pain, increased likelihood of hospital admission, and deterioration of physician-patient relationships. METHODS We undertook a multidisciplinary effort to improve the management of VOC in the ED, by development and implementation of an evidence-based clinical care pathway. The clinical pathway was implemented at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in December 2018, with direct education of hematology and ED providers around the content of the clinical pathway, and availability of the pathway on the institutional intranet. Specific areas of focus in the pathway included appropriate triaging of patients as emergency severity index 2, timely administration of initial opioid dose, rapid reassessment and administration of additional opioid doses as needed, as well as appropriate laboratory evaluation and evaluation for other common and/or serious complications of SCD. Outcome measures included time from ED registration to administration of first opioid dose, time between administration of first opioid dose and second opioid dose, and proportion of patients discharged from the ED. Balance measures included rate of ED readmission and length of stay. RESULTS There were 602 ED visits from 103 unique patients in the study period, with 256 visits in the six-month period prior to pathway implementation and 346 visits in the six-month period after implementation. Following pathway implementation, time from registration to first opioid dose fell from 114 minutes to 93 minutes (p = 0.003). The proportion of patients receiving their first opioid dose within 60 minutes of registration increased from 19% to 33%. Time from administration of the first opioid dose to the second opioid dose improved from 117 minutes to 94 minutes (p = 0.002). The proportion of patients receiving their second opioid dose within 60 minutes of the first opioid dose increased from 27% to 37%. There was no change in the rate of hospital admission from the ED, or in the proportion of patients who left without being seen (p = 0.710). There was also no change in rate of ED readmissions (p = 0.138) or length of stay (p = 0.483). CONCLUSION Implementation of an evidence-based clinical care pathway in the ED for SCD patients presenting with VOC led to significant improvement in outcomes, with decreased time to first opioid dose and decreased time from first to second opioid dose. Nevertheless, very few patients received guideline-based care, particularly with the goal of time to first opioid dose of less than 30 minutes. While our data demonstrate that provider education and clinical pathways clearly improve the management of VOC in the ED, additional interventions will be required to target other barriers to optimal management, including implicit biases, negative provider attitudes, and social stigma surrounding SCD. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


1997 ◽  
Vol 60 (11) ◽  
pp. 470-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Clare Taylor

Evidence-based practice are the buzz words of current health care. This article explores what evidence-based practice actually means for occupational therapists. Evidence-based practice has two strands. The first strand involves using the best available evidence as part of the clinical decision-making process. The second strand involves drawing the evidence together in the form of systematic reviews. These reviews may then be used to help inform the development of clinical guidelines. This article outlines and discusses both strands of evidence-based practice and the relevance of each strand to practising occupational therapists. It explores how therapists can locate, evaluate and use evidence to inform their practice. The article focuses particularly on the development of critical appraisal skills. The role of systematic reviews and the relevance of clinical guidelines for occupational therapy are discussed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Emer O'Brien ◽  
Barbara Clyne ◽  
Susan M. Smith ◽  
Noirin O'Herlihy ◽  
Velma Harkins ◽  
...  

Introduction: General practitioners (GPs) strive to use a patient centered approach to achieve shared decision making by integrating clinical evidence, clinical judgement, and patient priorities. In order to achieve this standard of care, GPs require relevant, up to date and high quality evidence. Currently there is a gap in the literature regarding the role of GP professional organisations internationally in producing and publishing evidence based guidance and clinical guidelines for GPs. This protocol outlines a scoping review to identify what evidence-based guidance is produced by general practitioner professional organisations internationally in terms of topic content, the structure and methods used to develop guidance and ways of disseminating this guidance, to support general practice clinical decision making. Methods: This scoping review will be conducted using the framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), will be used to guide the reporting. Two researchers will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus), grey literature sources and contact international GP professional organisations directly to identify appropriate studies for inclusion. Key information will be categorised and classified to generate a summary of the methods used internationally to develop and implement evidence-based guides for general practitioners and a narrative synthesis will be conducted. Conclusions: This scoping review will examine current practice internationally regarding the role of General Practice professional organisations in producing and publishing clinical guidelines and evidence based guidance to support general practitioner’s clinical decision making to benefit patient care.


CNS Spectrums ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (S12) ◽  
pp. 34-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
David S. Baldwin

AbstractEvidence-based medicine (EBM) enables clinicians to justify decision making, enhances the quality of medical practice, identifies unanswered research questions, and ensures the efficient practice of medicine. Implementation of evidence-based mental health programs requires education, time, and improved effort by administration, regulatory, and clinical professionals. Essential to these efforts are consistent incentives for change, effective training materials, and clear clinical guidelines. Guidelines exist within the framework of EBM. Good guidelines are simple, specific, and user friendly, focus on key clinical decisions, are based on research evidence, and present evidence and recommendations in a concise and accessible format. Potential limitations of guidelines to improve clinical outcomes in anxiety disorders are the widespread distribution of anxiety symptoms in primary care, health inequalities across patient groups, persistent misconceptions regarding psychotropic drugs, and low confidence in using simple psychological treatments. Clinical guidelines generally specify therapeutic areas covered and not covered, but often there is no mention of cost or cost effectiveness of treatment. Guidelines can inform clinical decision making, but administrators of drug formularies may regard themselves as being primarily responsible for limiting costs and access to certain medications, even if these decisions are at odds with guideline recommendations.


2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Jeri A. Logemann

Evidence-based practice requires astute clinicians to blend our best clinical judgment with the best available external evidence and the patient's own values and expectations. Sometimes, we value one more than another during clinical decision-making, though it is never wise to do so, and sometimes other factors that we are unaware of produce unanticipated clinical outcomes. Sometimes, we feel very strongly about one clinical method or another, and hopefully that belief is founded in evidence. Some beliefs, however, are not founded in evidence. The sound use of evidence is the best way to navigate the debates within our field of practice.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra-Raluca Gatej ◽  
Audri Lamers ◽  
Robert Vermeiren ◽  
Lieke van Domburgh

Severe behaviour problems (SBPs) in early childhood include oppositional and aggressive behaviours and predict negative mental health outcomes later in life. Although effective treatments for this group are available and numerous clinical practice guidelines have been developed to facilitate the incorporation of evidence-based treatments in clinical decision-making (NICE, 2013), many children with SBPs remain unresponsive to treatment (Lahey & Waldman, 2012). At present, it is unknown how many countries in Europe possess official clinical guidelines for SBPs diagnosis and treatment and what is their perceived utility. The aim was to create an inventory of clinical guidelines (and associated critical needs) for the diagnostics and treatment of SBPs in youth mental health across Europe according to academic experts and mental health clinicians’ opinions. To investigate the aim, two separate online semi-structured questionnaires were used, one directed at academics (N=28 academic experts; 23 countries), and the other at clinicians (N=124 clinicians; 24 countries). Three key results were highlighted. First, guidelines for SBPs are perceived as beneficial by both experts and clinicians. However, their implementation needs to be reinforced and content better adapted to daily practice. Improvements may include taking a multifactorial approach to assessment and treatment, involving the systems around the child, and multidisciplinary collaboration. Second, academic experts and clinicians support the need for further developing national / European guidelines. Finally, future guidelines should address current challenges identified by clinicians to be more applicable to daily practice.


2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (03) ◽  
pp. 151-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Doeltgen ◽  
Stacie Attrill ◽  
Joanne Murray

AbstractProficient clinical reasoning is a critical skill in high-quality, evidence-based management of swallowing impairment (dysphagia). Clinical reasoning in this area of practice is a cognitively complex process, as it requires synthesis of multiple sources of information that are generated during a thorough, evidence-based assessment process and which are moderated by the patient's individual situations, including their social and demographic circumstances, comorbidities, or other health concerns. A growing body of health and medical literature demonstrates that clinical reasoning skills develop with increasing exposure to clinical cases and that the approaches to clinical reasoning differ between novices and experts. It appears that it is not the amount of knowledge held, but the way it is used, that distinguishes a novice from an experienced clinician. In this article, we review the roles of explicit and implicit processing as well as illness scripts in clinical decision making across the continuum of medical expertise and discuss how they relate to the clinical management of swallowing impairment. We also reflect on how this literature may inform educational curricula that support SLP students in developing preclinical reasoning skills that facilitate their transition to early clinical practice. Specifically, we discuss the role of case-based curricula to assist students to develop a meta-cognitive awareness of the different approaches to clinical reasoning, their own capabilities and preferences, and how and when to apply these in dysphagia management practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document