What is the Best Way to Produce Consensus and Buy in to Guidelines for Rectal Cancer?

Sharing voice during deliberative engagement to improve guideline adherence in dental clinics: findings from a qualitative evaluation of an online deliberative forum discussion

OBJECTIVES

Selecting effective implementation strategies to support guideline-concordant dental care is a complex process. For this research project, an online deliberative forum brought together staff from dental clinics to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of implementation strategies and barriers to implementation of a component of a dental (pit-and-fissure) guideline. The goal was to determine whether deliberative engagement enabled participants' sharing of promotive and prohibitive voice about implementation strategies to promote guideline-concordant care.

DESIGN

Qualitative analysis of online chat transcripts of facilitated deliberations from 31 small group sessions.

SETTING

Kaiser Permanente Dental (KP Dental) in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

All staff from 16 dental offices.

RESULTS

The directed content analysis revealed that participants shared prohibitive and promotive voice when offering critique of the barriers and the implementation strategies suggested by the researchers. The analysis also revealed that the focus of the deliberations often was not on the aspect of the pit-and-fissure guideline intended by the research team for deliberation.

CONCLUSIONS

The deliberative forum discussions were a productive venue to ask staff in dental clinics to share their perspectives on strategies to promote guideline-concordant care as well as barriers. Participants demonstrated prohibitive voice and engaged critically with the materials the research team had put together. An important limitation of the deliberation was that the discussion often centred around an aspect of the pit-and-fissure guideline that already was implemented well. To ensure a deliberation oriented towards resolving challenging aspects of the pit-and-fissure guideline, greater familiarity with the guideline would have been important, as well as more intimate knowledge of the current discrepancies in guideline-concordant care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT04682730. The trial was first registered on 18 December 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04682730.

Obstetrical brachial plexus injury (OBPI): Canada's national clinical practice guideline

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to establish an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the primary management of obstetrical brachial plexus injury (OBPI). This clinical practice guideline addresses 4 existing gaps: (1) historic poor use of evidence, (2) timing of referral to multidisciplinary care, (3) Indications and timing of operative nerve repair and (4) distribution of expertise.

SETTING

The guideline is intended for all healthcare providers treating infants and children, and all specialists treating upper extremity injuries.

PARTICIPANTS

The evidence interpretation and recommendation consensus team (Canadian OBPI Working Group) was composed of clinicians representing each of Canada's 10 multidisciplinary centres.

OUTCOME MEASURES

An electronic modified Delphi approach was used for consensus, with agreement criteria defined a priori. Quality indicators for referral to a multidisciplinary centre were established by consensus. An original meta-analysis of primary nerve repair and review of Canadian epidemiology and burden were previously completed.

RESULTS

7 recommendations address clinical gaps and guide identification, referral, treatment and outcome assessment: (1) physically examine for OBPI in newborns with arm asymmetry or risk factors; (2) refer newborns with OBPI to a multidisciplinary centre by 1 month; (3) provide pregnancy/birth history and physical examination findings at birth; (4) multidisciplinary centres should include a therapist and peripheral nerve surgeon experienced with OBPI; (5) physical therapy should be advised by a multidisciplinary team; (6) microsurgical nerve repair is indicated in root avulsion and other OBPI meeting centre operative criteria; (7) the common data set includes the Narakas classification, limb length, Active Movement Scale (AMS) and Brachial Plexus Outcome Measure (BPOM) 2 years after birth/surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The process established a new network of opinion leaders and researchers for further guideline development and multicentre research. A structured referral form is available for primary care, including referral recommendations.

Obstetrical brachial plexus injury: burden in a publicly funded, universal healthcare system

OBJECT The aim of this study was to determine the volume and timing of referrals for obstetrical brachial plexus injury (OBPI) to multidisciplinary centers in a national demographic sample. Secondarily, we aimed to measure the incidence and risk factors for OBPI in the sample. The burden of OBPI has not been investigated in a publicly funded system, and the timing and volume of referrals to multidisciplinary centers are unknown. The incidence and risk factors for OBPI have not been established in Canada. METHODS This is a retrospective cohort study. The authors used a demographic sample of all infants born in Canada, capturing all children born in a publicly funded, universal healthcare system. OBPI diagnoses and corresponding risk factors from 2004 to 2012 were identified and correlated with referrals to Canada's 10 multidisciplinary OBPI centers. Quality indicators were approved by the Canadian OBPI Working Group's guideline consensus group. The primary outcome was the timing of initial assessment at a multidisciplinary center, "good" if assessed by the time the patient was 1 month of age, "satisfactory" if by 3 months of age, and "poor" if thereafter. Joinpoint regression analysis was used to determine the OBPI incidence over the study period. Odds ratios were calculated to determine the strength of association for risk factors. RESULTS OBPI incidence was 1.24 per 1000 live births, and was consistent from 2004 to 2012. Potential biases underestimate the level of injury identification. The factors associated with a very strong risk for OBPI were humerus fracture, shoulder dystocia, and clavicle fracture. The majority (55%-60%) of OBPI patients identified at birth were not referred. Among those who were referred, the timing of assessment was "good" in 28%, "satisfactory" in 66%, and "poor" in 34%. CONCLUSIONS Shoulder dystocia was the strongest modifiable risk factor for OBPI. Most children with OBPI were not referred to multidisciplinary care. Of those who were referred, 72% were assessed later than the target quality indicator of 1 month that was established by the national guideline consensus group. A referral gap has been identified using quality indicators at clinically relevant time points; this gap should be addressed with the use of knowledge tools (e.g., a clinical practice guideline) to target variations in referral rates and clinical practice. Interventions should guide the referral process.