Evidence-based Guidelines for Prehospital Practice: A Process Whose Time Has Come

2022 Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Guidelines for Prehospital Care

INTRODUCTION

Multiple national organizations and federal agencies have promoted the development, implementation, and evaluation of evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) for prehospital care. Previous efforts have identified opportunities to improve the quality of prehospital guidelines and highlighted the value of high-quality EBGs to inform initial certification and continued competency activities for EMS personnel.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to perform a systematic review of prehospital guidelines published from January 2018 to April 2021, evaluate guideline quality, and identify top-scoring guidelines to facilitate dissemination and educational activities for EMS personnel.

METHODS

We searched the literature in Ovid Medline and EMBASE from January 2018 to April 2021, excluding guidelines identified in a prior systematic review. Publications were retained if they were relevant to prehospital care, based on organized reviews of the literature, and focused on providing recommendations for clinical care or operations. Included guidelines were appraised to identify if they met the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) criteria for high-quality guidelines and scored across the six domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.

RESULTS

We identified 75 guidelines addressing a variety of clinical and operational aspects of EMS medicine. About half (n = 39, 52%) addressed time/life-critical conditions and 33 (44%) contained recommendations relevant to non-clinical/operational topics. Fewer than half (n = 35, 47%) were based on systematic reviews of the literature. Nearly one-third (n = 24, 32%) met all NAM criteria for clinical practice guidelines. Only 27 (38%) guidelines scored an average of >75% across AGREE II domains, with content relevant to guideline implementation most commonly missing.

CONCLUSIONS

This interval systematic review of prehospital EBGs identified many new guidelines relevant to prehospital care; more than all guidelines reported in a prior systematic review. Our review reveals important gaps in the quality of guideline development and the content in their publications, evidenced by the low proportion of guidelines meeting NAM criteria and the scores across AGREE II domains. Efforts to increase guideline dissemination, implementation, and related education may be best focused around the highest quality guidelines identified in this review.

Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Prehospital Evidence-Based Guidelines

Evidence-based guidelines that provide recommendations for clinical care or operations are increasingly being published to inform the EMS community. The quality of evidence evaluation and methodological rigor undertaken to develop and publish these recommendations vary. This can negatively affect dissemination, education, and implementation efforts. Guideline developers and end users could be better informed by efforts across medical specialties to improve the quality of guidelines, including the use of specific criteria that have been identified within the highest quality guidelines. In this special contribution, we aim to describe the current state of published guidelines available to the EMS community informed by two recent systematic reviews of existing prehospital evidenced based guidelines (EBGs). We further aim to provide a description of key elements of EBGs, methods that can be used to assess their quality, and concrete recommendations for guideline developers to improve the quality of evidence evaluation, guideline development, and reporting. Finally, we outline six key recommendations for improving prehospital EBGs, informed by systematic reviews of prehospital guidelines performed by the Prehospital Guidelines Consortium.

Implementing Prehospital Evidence-Based Guidelines: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

As prehospital research advances, more evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) are implemented into emergency medical services (EMS) practice. However, incomplete or suboptimal prehospital EBG implementation may hinder improvement in patient outcomes. To inform future efforts, this study's objective was to review existing evidence pertaining to prehospital EBG implementation methods.

METHODS

This study was a systematic literature review and evaluation following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Google Advanced Search were searched without language or publication date filters for articles addressing prehospital EBG implementation. Conference proceedings, textbooks, and non-English articles were excluded. GRADE was applied to the remaining articles independently by three of five study investigators. Study characteristics and salient findings from the included articles are reported.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review identified 1,367 articles, with 41 meeting inclusion criteria. Most articles described prehospital EBG implementation (n = 24, 59%), or implementation barriers (n = 13, 32%). Common study designs were statement documents (n = 12, 29%), retrospective cohort studies (n = 12, 29%), and cross-sectional studies (n = 9, 22%). Using GRADE, evidence quality was rated low (n = 18, 44%), or very low (n = 23, 56%). Salient findings from the articles included: (i) EBG adherence and patient outcomes depend upon successful implementation, (ii) published studies generally lack detailed implementation methods, (iii) EBG implementation takes longer than planned (mostly for EMS education), (iv) EMS systems' heterogeneity affects EBG implementation, and (v) multiple barriers limit successful implementation (e.g., financial constraints, equipment purchasing, coordination with hospitals, and regulatory agencies). This review found no direct evidence for best prehospital EBG implementation practices. There were no studies comparing implementation methods or implementation in different prehospital settings (e.g., urban vs. rural, advanced vs. basic life support).

CONCLUSIONS

While prehospital EBG implementation barriers are well described, there is a paucity of evidence for optimal implementation methods. For scientific advances to reach prehospital patients, EBG development efforts must translate into EMS practice. Future research should consider comparing implementation methodologies in different prehospital settings, with a goal of defining detailed, reproducible best practices.

Evidence-Based Guidelines for Fatigue Risk Management in EMS: Formulating Research Questions and Selecting Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Greater than half of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel report work-related fatigue, yet there are no guidelines for the management of fatigue in EMS. A novel process has been established for evidence-based guideline (EBG) development germane to clinical EMS questions. This process has not yet been applied to operational EMS questions like fatigue risk management. The objective of this study was to develop content valid research questions in the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework, and select outcomes to guide systematic reviews and development of EBGs for EMS fatigue risk management.

METHODS

We adopted the National Prehospital EBG Model Process and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework for developing, implementing, and evaluating EBGs in the prehospital care setting. In accordance with steps one and two of the Model Process, we searched for existing EBGs, developed a multi-disciplinary expert panel and received external input. Panelists completed an iterative process to formulate research questions. We used the Content Validity Index (CVI) to score relevance and clarity of candidate PICO questions. The panel completed multiple rounds of question editing and used a CVI benchmark of ≥0.78 to indicate acceptable levels of clarity and relevance. Outcomes for each PICO question were rated from 1 = less important to 9 = critical.

RESULTS

Panelists formulated 13 candidate PICO questions, of which 6 were eliminated or merged with other questions. Panelists reached consensus on seven PICO questions (n = 1 diagnosis and n = 6 intervention). Final CVI scores of relevance ranged from 0.81 to 1.00. Final CVI scores of clarity ranged from 0.88 to 1.00. The mean number of outcomes rated as critical, important, and less important by PICO question was 0.7 (SD 0.7), 5.4 (SD 1.4), and 3.6 (SD 1.9), respectively. Patient and personnel safety were rated as critical for most PICO questions. PICO questions and outcomes were registered with PROSPERO, an international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe formulating and refining research questions and selection of outcomes to guide systematic reviews germane to EMS fatigue risk management. We outline a protocol for applying the Model Process and GRADE framework to create evidence-based guidelines.

Contemporary evidence-based practice in Canadian emergency medical services: a vision for integrating evidence into clinical and policy decision-making

Nationally, emphasis on the importance of evidence-based practice (EBP) in emergency medicine and emergency medical services (EMS) has continuously increased. However, meaningful incorporation of effective and sustainable EBP into clinical and administrative decision-making remains a challenge. We propose a vision for EBP in EMS: Canadian EMS clinicians and leaders will understand and use the best available evidence for clinical and administrative decision-making, to improve patient health outcomes, the capability and quality of EMS systems of care, and safety of patients and EMS professionals. This vision can be implemented with the use of a structure, process, system, and outcome taxonomy to identify current barriers to true EBP, to recognize the opportunities that exist, and propose corresponding recommended strategies for local EMS agencies and at the national level. Framing local and national discussions with this approach will be useful for developing a cohesive and collaborative Canadian EBP strategy.

Evidence-based pathology: systematic literature reviews as the basis for guidelines and best practices

CONTEXT

Evidence-based medicine has been proposed as a new paradigm for the identification and evaluation of medical information. Best available evidence or data are identified and used as the basis for the diagnosis and treatment of individual patients. Evidence-based pathology has adapted basic evidence-based medicine concepts to the specific needs of pathology and laboratory medicine.

OBJECTIVES

To briefly review the history and basic concepts of evidence-based medicine and evidence-based pathology, describe how to perform and interpret systematic reviews, and discuss how to integrate best evidence into guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Washington, DC) and Web of Science (Thompson Reuters, New York, New York) were used.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based pathology provides methodology to evaluate the quality of information published in pathology journals and apply it to the diagnosis of tissue samples and other tests from individual patients. Information is gathered through the use of systematic reviews, using a method that is less biased and more comprehensive than ad hoc literature searches. Published data are classified into evidence levels to provide readers with a quick impression about the quality and probable clinical validity of available information. Best available evidence is combined with personal experience for the formulation of evidence-based, rather than opinion-based, guidelines that address specific practice needs.