Addressing the Continuing Challenges of Developing and Implementing Clinical Practice Guidelines.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal for Quality in Health Care Pub Date : 2024-11-25 DOI:10.1093/intqhc/mzae110
Phillip Phan
{"title":"Addressing the Continuing Challenges of Developing and Implementing Clinical Practice Guidelines.","authors":"Phillip Phan","doi":"10.1093/intqhc/mzae110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This editorial examines the ongoing challenges associated with developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), sparked by Ng et al.'s analysis of pre-participation physical evaluations (PPE) for youth athletes. The authors reveal that only a third of the PPE evaluation they reviewed documented all essential patient history elements. They suggest that the limited efficacy of PPEs in predicting serious cardiac events may lead practitioners to deprioritize comprehensive history-taking, and point to the stronger evidence for electrocardiograms (ECG) as a more effective diagnostic tool. Practitioners should reflect more broadly on the inherent tension between CPG standardization and the need for clinical flexibility. While standardized guidelines are crucial for consistent, high-quality care in acute and chronic settings, social determinants of health (SDH) can affect patient adherence and outcomes, necessitating tailored approaches, which can account for the disparities in CPG application across different populations and healthcare environments. Complex guidelines can be overwhelming, particularly in under-resourced settings, where they may be impractical or difficult to follow. For these areas, CPGs should account for local infrastructure and healthcare capabilities, potentially substituting advanced diagnostics with enhanced clinical skills. There are additional concerns about CPG development processes, including the variability in expert opinions, the influence of industry funding, and conflicts of interest that may erode trust and compliance. While industry contributions can enhance guideline robustness, transparency and accountability are vital to maintaining the integrity of CPGs. In conclusion, we call for a pragmatic approach to CPG development that balances scientific rigor with adaptability to diverse clinical and resource-limited settings. Addressing these challenges is essential for fostering equitable and effective patient care and enhancing the trustworthiness of CPGs in the global healthcare landscape.</p>","PeriodicalId":13800,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzae110","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This editorial examines the ongoing challenges associated with developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), sparked by Ng et al.'s analysis of pre-participation physical evaluations (PPE) for youth athletes. The authors reveal that only a third of the PPE evaluation they reviewed documented all essential patient history elements. They suggest that the limited efficacy of PPEs in predicting serious cardiac events may lead practitioners to deprioritize comprehensive history-taking, and point to the stronger evidence for electrocardiograms (ECG) as a more effective diagnostic tool. Practitioners should reflect more broadly on the inherent tension between CPG standardization and the need for clinical flexibility. While standardized guidelines are crucial for consistent, high-quality care in acute and chronic settings, social determinants of health (SDH) can affect patient adherence and outcomes, necessitating tailored approaches, which can account for the disparities in CPG application across different populations and healthcare environments. Complex guidelines can be overwhelming, particularly in under-resourced settings, where they may be impractical or difficult to follow. For these areas, CPGs should account for local infrastructure and healthcare capabilities, potentially substituting advanced diagnostics with enhanced clinical skills. There are additional concerns about CPG development processes, including the variability in expert opinions, the influence of industry funding, and conflicts of interest that may erode trust and compliance. While industry contributions can enhance guideline robustness, transparency and accountability are vital to maintaining the integrity of CPGs. In conclusion, we call for a pragmatic approach to CPG development that balances scientific rigor with adaptability to diverse clinical and resource-limited settings. Addressing these challenges is essential for fostering equitable and effective patient care and enhancing the trustworthiness of CPGs in the global healthcare landscape.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
应对制定和实施临床实践指南的持续挑战。
这篇社论探讨了与制定和实施临床实践指南 (CPG) 相关的持续挑战,由 Ng 等人对青少年运动员参赛前体能评估 (PPE) 的分析引发。作者发现,在他们审查的 PPE 评估中,只有三分之一的评估记录了所有基本的病史要素。他们认为,PPE 在预测严重心脏事件方面的效果有限,这可能会导致从业人员不优先考虑全面的病史采集,并指出心电图(ECG)作为更有效的诊断工具的证据更充分。从业人员应更广泛地思考 CPG 标准化与临床灵活性需求之间固有的矛盾。虽然标准化指南对于在急性和慢性病环境中提供一致、高质量的护理至关重要,但健康的社会决定因素(SDH)会影响患者的依从性和治疗效果,因此有必要采取量身定制的方法,这也是 CPG 在不同人群和医疗环境中应用存在差异的原因。复杂的指南可能会让人不知所措,尤其是在资源不足的环境中,这些指南可能不切实际或难以遵循。对于这些地区,CPG 应考虑到当地的基础设施和医疗保健能力,有可能用提高临床技能来替代先进的诊断方法。CPG 的制定过程还存在其他一些问题,包括专家意见的多变性、行业资金的影响以及可能削弱信任度和合规性的利益冲突。虽然行业的贡献可以增强指南的稳健性,但透明度和问责制对于维护 CPG 的完整性至关重要。总之,我们呼吁在制定 CPG 时采取务实的方法,在科学严谨性与适应不同临床和资源有限环境之间取得平衡。应对这些挑战对于促进公平、有效的患者护理以及提高 CPGs 在全球医疗保健领域的可信度至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
87
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal for Quality in Health Care makes activities and research related to quality and safety in health care available to a worldwide readership. The Journal publishes papers in all disciplines related to the quality and safety of health care, including health services research, health care evaluation, technology assessment, health economics, utilization review, cost containment, and nursing care research, as well as clinical research related to quality of care. This peer-reviewed journal is truly interdisciplinary and includes contributions from representatives of all health professions such as doctors, nurses, quality assurance professionals, managers, politicians, social workers, and therapists, as well as researchers from health-related backgrounds.
期刊最新文献
Underreporting of adverse events to health authorities by healthcare professionals: a red flag-raising descriptive study. Addressing the Continuing Challenges of Developing and Implementing Clinical Practice Guidelines. Diagnostic performance of a newly launched Canadian fast-track ultrasound clinic by rheumatologists for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis. Exploring the Development of Safety Culture among Physicians with Text Mining of Patient Safety Reports: A Retrospective Study. Optimizing Neurosurgery Clinic Operations: A Comparative Study of Interventions in Finland's Public Healthcare System.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1