Central dimensions of clinical practice evaluation: efficiency, appropriateness and effectiveness--II

Clinical guidelines: promoting clinical effectiveness or a professional minefield?

The development of clinical guidelines as one means of implementing evidence-based practice is currently a topical issue. The recent Government White Paper, The New NHS. Modern. Dependable, proposes the establishment of a National Institute for Clinical Excellence whose expressed aim will be to produce and disseminate guidelines based upon evidence of clinical effectiveness in health care. There will be an expectation that practitioners adapt these national guidelines for local needs and particularize them to individual patients. There has been considerable debate in the medical press between the critics and advocates of evidence-based medicine surrounding the relative usefulness of clinical guidelines. However, there has been limited corresponding debate within the nursing literature, which has largely limited itself to descriptions of the implementation of guidelines. This paper examines some of the advantages and limitations of clinical guidelines as a means of operationalizing research evidence to promote effective health care. Finally, some recommendations surrounding the implementation of guidelines will be made.

Variations in cardiac transplantation: comparisons between the United Kingdom and the United States

BACKGROUND

International practice variations have been documented in various health care specialties. This study compares cardiac transplantation in the UK with practice in the US.

METHODS

UK data were from an ongoing multi-center prospective study, the UK Cardiothoracic Transplant Audit. The UK population comprised 620 listings and 463 transplants. US data were obtained from UNOS and comprised 3946 listings and 4704 transplants.

RESULTS

There was a mean of 14 transplants per center per year in the US compared with 34 in the UK. Notable differences in practice include rarity of listing in the UK of patients > 65 years (0.2% vs 4.1% in US) and patients with previous transplants (UK 0.9%, US 3.2%). Patients listed in the US were more likely to be on ventricular assist devices (odds ratio 8.0, 95% CI 3.0-21.7) or inotropes (odds ratio 4.9, 95% CI 3.7-6.4). Living donor (domino) transplants, although comprising 7% of transplants in the UK, are virtually non-existent in the US (1 domino in 4704 transplants). Heterotopic transplants were more common in the UK (4.4% vs 0.5%). Indications for transplant were similar (except retransplantation). The donor age was > 35 years in 43% of UK donors vs 33% of US donors.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals substantial practice differences between the UK and US. Further studies are required to examine the reasons for these practice differences, the influence on transplant outcome, and their ethical and economic implications.

Central dimensions of clinical practice evaluation: efficiency, appropriateness and effectiveness--I

Successful audit of clinical practice focuses upon the systematic investigation of key aspects of the everyday work of busy clinicians. We contend that the nature and quality of local clinical practice can be characterized by critical examinations of the effectiveness and appropriateness of practice and the efficiency with which effective, appropriate clinical care is delivered to patients. When such a baseline has been established, it becomes possible to compare and contrast characterized local practice with so-called 'evidence-based' practice and agree changes aimed at narrowing the discrepancy between the two. The nature of such changes can be described and their implementation into practice studied, with subsequent quantitative measurement and qualitative description of the resulting benefits to patients. A proper understanding of the concepts of efficiency, appropriateness and effectiveness in clinical care is clearly fundamental to the successful design and applications of methodologies aimed at securing measurable improvements in the quality of patient care. In this first of two articles we examine the concepts of efficiency and appropriateness in clinical practice, with particular emphasis on cost-effectiveness and utilization review. The clinical effectiveness of health care intervention is treated in detail within the second paper, to be published within Volume 2 Number 2 of the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (Miles et al. 1996f).