Naturalistic study of guideline implementation tool use via evaluation of website access and physician survey

Abstract

BackgroundClinical guidelines support decision-making at the point-of-care but the onus is often on individual users such as physicians to implement them. Research shows that the inclusion of implementation tools in or with guidelines (GItools) is associated with guideline use. However, there is little research on which GItools best support implementation by individual physicians. The purpose of this study was to investigate naturalistic access and use of GItools produced by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) to inform future tool development.MethodsWebsite accesses over six months were summarized for eight AAN guidelines and associated GItools published between July 2012 and August 2013. Academy members were surveyed about use of tools accompanying the sport concussion guideline. Data were analyzed using summary statistics and the Chi-square test.ResultsThe clinician summary was accessed more frequently (29.0%, p < 0.001) compared with the slide presentation (26.8%), patient summary (23.2%) or case study (20.9%), although this varied by guideline topic. For the sport concussion guideline, which was accompanied by a greater variety of GItools, the mobile phone quick reference check application was most frequently accessed, followed by the clinician summary, patient summary, and slide presentation. For the sports concussion guideline survey, most respondents (response rate 21.8%, 168/797) were aware of the guideline (88.1%) and had read the guideline (78.6%). For GItool use, respondents indicated reading the reference card (51.2%), clinician summary (45.2%), patient summary (28.0%), mobile phone application (26.2%), and coach/athletic trainer summary (20.2%). Patterns of sports concussion GItool use were similar between respondents who said they had and had not yet implemented the guideline.ConclusionsDevelopers faced with resource limitations may wish to prioritize the development of printable or mobile application clinician summaries, which were accessed significantly more than other types of GItools. Further research is needed to understand how to optimize the design of such GItools.

Complementary and integrative medicine mention and recommendations: A systematic review and quality assessment of lung cancer clinical practice guidelines

“…In addition to the AGREE II assessment tool, there are numerous principles, frameworks, checklists and criteria to assist CPG developers in generating high-quality CPGs, including those pertaining to CIM therapies. 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 …”

Patient involvement in guidelines is poor five years after institute of medicine standards: review of guideline methodologies

“…Educational resources for patients and families and other tools for patient/family communication comprise one domain of a framework for guideline implementability to improve guideline use [ 18 ]. Research also shows that patient and family guideline summaries are a commonly accessed guideline implementation tool, second only to clinician summaries in a study of website accesses [ 19 ]. There is room for improvement even for those developers currently creating patient/public-targeted guideline materials, as limited evidence was found for patient and public engagement in the drafting/review process and this is an obvious opportunity for PPI [ 7 , 11 , 13 ].…”

Examining clinician choice to follow-up (or not) on automated notifications of medication non-adherence by clinical decision support systems

“…Additionally, automated email contact initiations could be utilised. Automated follow-up of other services, systems and clinicians could involve interventions such as prompting clinicians—via email or other methods—to consider the potential impacts of different follow-up paths or, more simply, reminding the clinician of the value of the intervention [ 84 ]—design patterns from other industries that have been suggested as being potentially applicable to health [ 61 ].…”