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

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

BACKGROUND

Maintaining medication adherence can be challenging for people living with mental ill-health. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) based on automated detection of problematic patterns in Electronic Health Records (EHRs) have the potential to enable early intervention into non-adherence events ("flags") through suggesting evidence-based courses of action. However, extant literature shows multiple barriers-perceived lack of benefit in following up low-risk cases, veracity of data, human-centric design concerns, etc.-to clinician follow-up in real-world settings. This study examined patterns in clinician decision making behaviour related to follow-up of non-adherence prompts within a community mental health clinic.

METHODS

The prompts for follow-up, and the recording of clinician responses, were enabled by CDSS software (AI²). De-identified clinician notes recorded after reviewing a prompt were analysed using a thematic synthesis approach-starting with descriptions of clinician comments, then sorting into analytical themes related to design and, in parallel, a priori categories describing follow-up behaviours. Hypotheses derived from the literature about the follow-up categories' relationships with client and medication-subtype characteristics were tested.

RESULTS

The majority of clients were Not Followed-up (n = 260; 78%; Followed-up: n = 71; 22%). The analytical themes emerging from the decision notes suggested contextual factors-the clients' environment, their clinical relationships, and medical needs-mediated how clinicians interacted with the CDSS flags. Significant differences were found between medication subtypes and follow-up, with Anti-depressants less likely to be followed up than Anti-Psychotics and Anxiolytics (χ² = 35.196, 44.825; p < 0.001; v = 0.389, 0.499); and between the time taken to action Followed-up₀ and Not-followed up₁ flags (M₀ = 31.78; M₁ = 45.55; U = 12,119; p < 0.001; η² = .05).

CONCLUSION

These analyses encourage actively incorporating the input of consumers and carers, non-EHR data streams, and better incorporation of data from parallel health systems and other clinicians into CDSS designs to encourage follow-up.

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

BACKGROUND

Complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) use is widely sought by those diagnosed with cancer, with up to 50% of lung cancer patients seeking these therapies in the United States. The purpose of this study was to identify the quantity and assess the quality of CIM recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of lung cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify lung cancer CPGs. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from 2008 to 2018, along with the Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites. Eligible guidelines containing recommendations for the treatment and/or management of lung cancer were assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

RESULTS

From 589 unique search results, 4 guidelines mentioned CIM, of which 3 guidelines made CIM recommendations. Scaled domain percentages from highest to lowest were: scope and purpose (82.4% overall, 76.9% CIM), clarity and presentation (96.3% overall, 63.0% CIM), editorial independence (61.1% overall, 61.1% CIM), rigour of development (62.5% overall, 54.9% CIM), stakeholder involvement (66.7% overall, 42.6% CIM) and applicability (29.9% overall, 18.8% CIM). Quality varied within and across guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Guidelines that scored well could serve as a framework for discussion between patients and healthcare professionals regarding use of CIM therapies in the context of lung cancer. Guidelines that scored lower could be improved according to the AGREE II instrument, with insight from other guidelines development resources.

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

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

The 2011 standards for trustworthy development of healthcare guidelines published by the United States-based Institute of Medicine recommend that guideline developers involve patients and public representatives in the development process. The standards recommend that (1) patients and the public be actively involved as members on guideline development panels and (2) guideline developers seek patient and public input during review of the draft guideline. In this study, researchers reviewed the patient and public involvement strategies of guideline developers in the United States by looking at websites and guideline development practices. Of 101 organizations reviewed, only 8% require patient and public involvement on guideline development groups; 15% sometimes require it or describe it as optional. Only 24% of guideline developers always post draft guidelines for public comment. Thirteen percent of guideline developers ask patients or patient organizations to review draft guidelines at least some of the time. Only 20% of guideline developers create patient-targeted guideline products (e.g. patient summaries of guidelines). These low numbers show that there is a substantial gap between standards for patient and public involvement in guideline development and what is actually happening. This is a missed opportunity, as patient and public contributions to guideline development include assessing guideline priorities, introducing new topics, identifying important populations and outcomes, suggesting whether findings are meaningful, prompting holistic approaches to care, assessing how recommendations interact with patient values, and writing plain-language guideline versions. Guideline developers must commit to prioritizing patient and public involvement as one part of trustworthy guideline development.

BACKGROUND

The United States-based Institute of Medicine 2011 standards for trustworthy clinical practice guideline development recommended patient and public involvement in guideline development via participation by patients and public representatives on guideline development groups and via external review and public comment strategies. Guideline developer compliance with these standards has not been assessed. This study aimed to identify the frequency with which United States guideline developers are employing participation, consultation, and communication patient and public involvement strategies.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently extracted current patient and public involvement strategies of independent guideline developers, either (1) an organizational member of the Guidelines-International-Network North America and/or (2) having ≥2 guidelines in the National Guideline Clearinghouse between March 2011 and November 2015. Publicly available information was extracted from guideline developers' websites, methodology manuals, and guidelines between November 2015 and December 2016. Disagreements were resolved by discussion.

RESULTS

Of 101 organizations meeting inclusion criteria, only 8% require patient/public involvement on guideline development groups; 15% sometimes require it or describe it as optional. Only 24% always utilize public comment on draft guidelines; 13% engage patients/public in external review at least some of the time. Twenty percent of developers create patient-targeted guideline products.

CONCLUSIONS

There remains a substantial gap between patient/public involvement standards for guideline development and practice in the United States, even 5 years after publication of Institute of Medicine standards. This is a missed opportunity, as patient and public contributions to guideline development include assessing guideline priorities, introducing new topics, identifying key populations and outcomes, informing whether findings are meaningful, prompting holistic approaches to care, assessing how recommendations interact with patient values, and writing plain-language guideline versions. Guideline developers must commit to prioritizing patient and public involvement as one element of trustworthy guideline development.