STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2

Purpose: screening tool of older people's prescriptions (STOPP) and screening tool to alert to right treatment (START) criteria were first published in 2008. Due to an expanding therapeutics evidence base, updating of the criteria was required.

Methods: we reviewed the 2008 STOPP/START criteria to add new evidence-based criteria and remove any obsolete criteria. A thorough literature review was performed to reassess the evidence base of the 2008 criteria and the proposed new criteria. Nineteen experts from 13 European countries reviewed a new draft of STOPP & START criteria including proposed new criteria. These experts were also asked to propose additional criteria they considered important to include in the revised STOPP & START criteria and to highlight any criteria from the 2008 list they considered less important or lacking an evidence base. The revised list of criteria was then validated using the Delphi consensus methodology.

Results: the expert panel agreed a final list of 114 criteria after two Delphi validation rounds, i.e. 80 STOPP criteria and 34 START criteria. This represents an overall 31% increase in STOPP/START criteria compared with version 1. Several new STOPP categories were created in version 2, namely antiplatelet/anticoagulant drugs, drugs affecting, or affected by, renal function and drugs that increase anticholinergic burden; new START categories include urogenital system drugs, analgesics and vaccines.

Conclusion: STOPP/START version 2 criteria have been expanded and updated for the purpose of minimizing inappropriate prescribing in older people. These criteria are based on an up-to-date literature review and consensus validation among a European panel of experts.

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback is widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice either on its own or as a component of multifaceted quality improvement interventions. This is based on the belief that healthcare professionals are prompted to modify their practice when given performance feedback showing that their clinical practice is inconsistent with a desirable target. Despite its prevalence as a quality improvement strategy, there remains uncertainty regarding both the effectiveness of audit and feedback in improving healthcare practice and the characteristics of audit and feedback that lead to greater impact.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes and to examine factors that may explain variation in the effectiveness of audit and feedback.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2010, Issue 4, part of The Cochrane Library. www.thecochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 10 December 2010); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to November Week 3 2010) (searched 09 December 2010); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2010 Week 48) (searched 09 December 2010); CINAHL, Ebsco (1981 to present) (searched 10 December 2010); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI Web of Science (1975 to present) (searched 12-15 September 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as a summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured health professional practice or patient outcomes. In the case of multifaceted interventions, only trials in which audit and feedback was considered the core, essential aspect of at least one intervention arm were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All data were abstracted by two independent review authors. For the primary outcome(s) in each study, we calculated the median absolute risk difference (RD) (adjusted for baseline performance) of compliance with desired practice compliance for dichotomous outcomes and the median percent change relative to the control group for continuous outcomes. Across studies the median effect size was weighted by number of health professionals involved in each study. We investigated the following factors as possible explanations for the variation in the effectiveness of interventions across comparisons: format of feedback, source of feedback, frequency of feedback, instructions for improvement, direction of change required, baseline performance, profession of recipient, and risk of bias within the trial itself. We also conducted exploratory analyses to assess the role of context and the targeted clinical behaviour. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual, and qualitative analyses were undertaken to examine variation in effect size related to these factors.

MAIN RESULTS

We included and analysed 140 studies for this review. In the main analyses, a total of 108 comparisons from 70 studies compared any intervention in which audit and feedback was a core, essential component to usual care and evaluated effects on professional practice. After excluding studies at high risk of bias, there were 82 comparisons from 49 studies featuring dichotomous outcomes, and the weighted median adjusted RD was a 4.3% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5% to 16%) absolute increase in healthcare professionals' compliance with desired practice. Across 26 comparisons from 21 studies with continuous outcomes, the weighted median adjusted percent change relative to control was 1.3% (IQR = 1.3% to 28.9%). For patient outcomes, the weighted median RD was -0.4% (IQR -1.3% to 1.6%) for 12 comparisons from six studies reporting dichotomous outcomes and the weighted median percentage change was 17% (IQR 1.5% to 17%) for eight comparisons from five studies reporting continuous outcomes. Multivariable meta-regression indicated that feedback may be more effective when baseline performance is low, the source is a supervisor or colleague, it is provided more than once, it is delivered in both verbal and written formats, and when it includes both explicit targets and an action plan. In addition, the effect size varied based on the clinical behaviour targeted by the intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Audit and feedback generally leads to small but potentially important improvements in professional practice. The effectiveness of audit and feedback seems to depend on baseline performance and how the feedback is provided. Future studies of audit and feedback should directly compare different ways of providing feedback.

Burnout and self-reported patient care in an internal medicine residency program

BACKGROUND

Burnout is a syndrome of depersonalization, emotional exhaustion, and a sense of low personal accomplishment. Little is known about burnout in residents or its relationship to patient care.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of burnout in medical residents and explore its relationship to self-reported patient care practices.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study using an anonymous, mailed survey.

SETTING

University-based residency program in Seattle, Washington.

PARTICIPANTS

115 internal medicine residents.

MEASUREMENTS

Burnout was measured by using the Maslach Burnout Inventory and was defined as scores in the high range for medical professionals on the depersonalization or emotional exhaustion subscales. Five questions developed for this study assessed self-reported patient care practices that suggested suboptimal care (for example, "I did not fully discuss treatment options or answer a patient's questions" or "I made...errors that were not due to a lack of knowledge or inexperience"). Depression and at-risk alcohol use were assessed by using validated screening questionnaires.

RESULTS

Of 115 (76%) responding residents, 87 (76%) met the criteria for burnout. Compared with non-burned-out residents, burned-out residents were significantly more likely to self-report providing at least one type of suboptimal patient care at least monthly (53% vs. 21%; P = 0.004). In multivariate analyses, burnout--but not sex, depression, or at-risk alcohol use--was strongly associated with self-report of one or more suboptimal patient care practices at least monthly (odds ratio, 8.3 [95% CI, 2.6 to 26.5]). When each domain of burnout was evaluated separately, only a high score for depersonalization was associated with self-reported suboptimal patient care practices (in a dose-response relationship).

CONCLUSION

Burnout was common among resident physicians and was associated with self-reported suboptimal patient care practices.

Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Back pain remains a challenge for primary care internationally. One model that has not been tested is stratification of the management according to the patient's prognosis (low, medium, or high risk). We compared the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified primary care (intervention) with non-stratified current best practice (control).

METHODS

1573 adults (aged ≥18 years) with back pain (with or without radiculopathy) consultations at ten general practices in England responded to invitations to attend an assessment clinic. Eligible participants were randomly assigned by use of computer-generated stratified blocks with a 2:1 ratio to intervention or control group. Primary outcome was the effect of treatment on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 12 months. In the economic evaluation, we focused on estimating incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and health-care costs related to back pain. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN37113406.

FINDINGS

851 patients were assigned to the intervention (n=568) and control groups (n=283). Overall, adjusted mean changes in RMDQ scores were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group at 4 months (4·7 [SD 5·9] vs 3·0 [5·9], between-group difference 1·81 [95% CI 1·06-2·57]) and at 12 months (4·3 [6·4] vs 3·3 [6·2], 1·06 [0·25-1·86]), equating to effect sizes of 0·32 (0·19-0·45) and 0·19 (0·04-0·33), respectively. At 12 months, stratified care was associated with a mean increase in generic health benefit (0·039 additional QALYs) and cost savings (£240·01 vs £274·40) compared with the control group.

INTERPRETATION

The results show that a stratified approach, by use of prognostic screening with matched pathways, will have important implications for the future management of back pain in primary care.

FUNDING

Arthritis Research UK.

Vital Signs: Changes in Opioid Prescribing in the United States, 2006-2015

Background

Prescription opioid–related overdose deaths increased sharply during 1999–2010 in the United States in parallel with increased opioid prescribing. CDC assessed changes in national-level and county-level opioid prescribing during 2006–2015.

Methods

CDC analyzed retail prescription data from QuintilesIMS to assess opioid prescribing in the United States from 2006 to 2015, including rates, amounts, dosages, and durations prescribed. CDC examined county-level prescribing patterns in 2010 and 2015.

Results

The amount of opioids prescribed in the United States peaked at 782 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per capita in 2010 and then decreased to 640 MME per capita in 2015. Despite significant decreases, the amount of opioids prescribed in 2015 remained approximately three times as high as in 1999 and varied substantially across the country. County-level factors associated with higher amounts of prescribed opioids include a larger percentage of non-Hispanic whites; a higher prevalence of diabetes and arthritis; micropolitan status (i.e., town/city; nonmetro); and higher unemployment and Medicaid enrollment.

Conclusions and Implications for Public Health Practice

Despite reductions in opioid prescribing in some parts of the country, the amount of opioids prescribed remains high relative to 1999 levels and varies substantially at the county-level. Given associations between opioid prescribing, opioid use disorder, and overdose rates, health care providers should carefully weigh the benefits and risks when prescribing opioids outside of end-of-life care, follow evidence-based guidelines, such as CDC’s Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain, and consider nonopioid therapy for chronic pain treatment. State and local jurisdictions can use these findings combined with Prescription Drug Monitoring Program data to identify areas with prescribing patterns that place patients at risk for opioid use disorder and overdose and to target interventions with prescribers based on opioid prescribing guidelines.

Practice parameter: prediction of outcome in comatose survivors after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (an evidence-based review) [RETIRED]: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review outcomes in comatose survivors after cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

METHODS

The authors analyzed studies (1966 to 2006) that explored predictors of death or unconsciousness after 1 month or unconsciousness or severe disability after 6 months.

RESULTS

The authors identified four class I studies, three class II studies, and five class III studies on clinical findings and circumstances. The indicators of poor outcome after CPR are absent pupillary light response or corneal reflexes, and extensor or no motor response to pain after 3 days of observation (level A), and myoclonus status epilepticus (level B). Prognosis cannot be based on circumstances of CPR (level B) or elevated body temperature (level C). The authors identified one class I, one class II, and nine class III studies on electrophysiology. Bilateral absent cortical responses on somatosensory evoked potential studies recorded 3 days after CPR predicted poor outcome (level B). Burst suppression or generalized epileptiform discharges on EEG predicted poor outcomes but with insufficient prognostic accuracy (level C). The authors identified one class I, 11 class III, and three class IV studies on biochemical markers. Serum neuron-specific enolase higher than 33 microg/L predicted poor outcome (level B). Ten class IV studies on brain monitoring and neuroimaging did not provide data to support or refute usefulness in prognostication (level U).

CONCLUSION

Pupillary light response, corneal reflexes, motor responses to pain, myoclonus status epilepticus, serum neuron-specific enolase, and somatosensory evoked potential studies can reliably assist in accurately predicting poor outcome in comatose patients after cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest.

ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Intensive care

Enteral nutrition (EN) via tube feeding is, today, the preferred way of feeding the critically ill patient and an important means of counteracting for the catabolic state induced by severe diseases. These guidelines are intended to give evidence-based recommendations for the use of EN in patients who have a complicated course during their ICU stay, focusing particularly on those who develop a severe inflammatory response, i.e. patients who have failure of at least one organ during their ICU stay. These guidelines were developed by an interdisciplinary expert group in accordance with officially accepted standards and are based on all relevant publications since 1985. They were discussed and accepted in a consensus conference. EN should be given to all ICU patients who are not expected to be taking a full oral diet within three days. It should have begun during the first 24h using a standard high-protein formula. During the acute and initial phases of critical illness an exogenous energy supply in excess of 20-25 kcal/kg BW/day should be avoided, whereas, during recovery, the aim should be to provide values of 25-30 total kcal/kg BW/day. Supplementary parenteral nutrition remains a reserve tool and should be given only to those patients who do not reach their target nutrient intake on EN alone. There is no general indication for immune-modulating formulae in patients with severe illness or sepsis and an APACHE II Score >15. Glutamine should be supplemented in patients suffering from burns or trauma.

Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians

Guidelines for medical practice can contribute to improved care only if they succeed in moving actual practice closer to the behaviors the guidelines recommend. To assess the effect of such guidelines, we surveyed hospitals and obstetricians in Ontario before and after the release of a widely distributed and nationally endorsed consensus statement recommending decreases in the use of cesarean sections. These surveys, along with discharge data from hospitals reflecting actual practice, revealed that most obstetricians (87 to 94 percent) were aware of the guidelines and that most (82.5 to 85 percent) agreed with them. Attitudes toward the use of cesarean section were congruent with the recommendations even before their release. One third of the hospitals and obstetricians reported changing their practice as a consequence of the guidelines, and obstetricians reported rates of cesarean section in women with a previous cesarean section that were significantly reduced, in keeping with the recommendations (from 72.2 percent to 61.1 percent; P less than 0.01). The surveys also showed, however, that knowledge of the content of the recommendations was poor (67 percent correct responses). Furthermore, data on actual practice after the publication of the guidelines showed that the rates of cesarean section were 15 to 49 percent higher than the rates reported by obstetricians, and they showed only a slight change from the previous upward trend. We conclude that guidelines for practice may predispose physicians to consider changing their behavior, but that unless there are other incentives or the removal of disincentives, guidelines may be unlikely to effect rapid change in actual practice. We believe that incentives should operate at the local level, although they may include system-wide economic changes.

ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Surgery including organ transplantation

Enhanced recovery of patients after surgery ("ERAS") has become an important focus of perioperative management. From a metabolic and nutritional point of view, the key aspects of perioperative care include: Enteral nutrition (EN) by means of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) and if necessary tube feeding (TF) offers the possibility of increasing or ensuring nutrient intake in cases where food intake is inadequate. These guidelines are intended to give evidence-based recommendations for the use of ONS and TF in surgical patients. They were developed by an interdisciplinary expert group in accordance with officially accepted standards and are based on all relevant publications since 1980. The guideline was discussed and accepted in a consensus conference. EN is indicated even in patients without obvious undernutrition, if it is anticipated that the patient will be unable to eat for more than 7 days perioperatively. It is also indicated in patients who cannot maintain oral intake above 60% of recommended intake for more than 10 days. In these situations nutritional support should be initiated without delay. Delay of surgery for preoperative EN is recommended for patients at severe nutritional risk, defined by the presence of at least one of the following criteria: weight loss >10-15% within 6 months, BMI<18.5 kg/m(2), Subjective Global Assessment Grade C, serum albumin <30 g/l (with no evidence of hepatic or renal dysfunction). Altogether, it is strongly recommended not to wait until severe undernutrition has developed, but to start EN therapy early, as soon as a nutritional risk becomes apparent.

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback continues to be widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice. It appears logical that healthcare professionals would be prompted to modify their practice if given feedback that their clinical practice was inconsistent with that of their peers or accepted guidelines. Yet, audit and feedback has not consistently been found to be effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's register and pending file up to January 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as any summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken. For each comparison we calculated the risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR), adjusted for baseline compliance when possible, for dichotomous outcomes and the percentage and the percent change relative to the control group average after the intervention, adjusted for baseline performance when possible, for continuous outcomes. We investigated the following factors as possible explanations for the variation in the effectiveness of interventions across comparisons: the type of intervention (audit and feedback alone, audit and feedback with educational meetings, or multifaceted interventions that included audit and feedback), the intensity of the audit and feedback, the complexity of the targeted behaviour, the seriousness of the outcome, baseline compliance and study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty new studies were added to this update, and a total of 118 studies are included. In the primary analysis 88 comparisons from 72 studies were included that compared any intervention in which audit and feedback is a component compared to no intervention. For dichotomous outcomes the adjusted risk difference of compliance with desired practice varied from - 0.16 (a 16 % absolute decrease in compliance) to 0.70 (a 70% increase in compliance) (median = 0.05, inter-quartile range = 0.03 to 0.11) and the adjusted risk ratio varied from 0.71 to 18.3 (median = 1.08, inter-quartile range = 0.99 to 1.30). For continuous outcomes the adjusted percent change relative to control varied from -0.10 (a 10 % absolute decrease in compliance) to 0.68 (a 68% increase in compliance) (median = 0.16, inter-quartile range = 0.05 to 0.37). Low baseline compliance with recommended practice and higher intensity of audit and feedback were associated with larger adjusted risk ratios (greater effectiveness) across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. When it is effective, the effects are generally small to moderate. The relative effectiveness of audit and feedback is likely to be greater when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low and when feedback is delivered more intensively.

Screening, assessment, and care of anxiety and depressive symptoms in adults with cancer: an American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline adaptation

PURPOSE

A Pan-Canadian Practice Guideline on Screening, Assessment, and Care of Psychosocial Distress (Depression, Anxiety) in Adults With Cancer was identified for adaptation.

METHODS

American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for adapting clinical practice guidelines developed by other organizations. The guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor and content applicability.

RESULTS

On the basis of content review of the pan-Canadian guideline, the ASCO panel agreed that, in general, the recommendations were clear, thorough, based on the most relevant scientific evidence, and presented options that will be acceptable to patients. However, for some topics addressed in the pan-Canadian guideline, the ASCO panel formulated a set of adapted recommendations based on local context and practice beliefs of the ad hoc panel members. It is recommended that all patients with cancer be evaluated for symptoms of depression and anxiety at periodic times across the trajectory of care. Assessment should be performed using validated, published measures and procedures. Depending on levels of symptoms and supplementary information, differing treatment pathways are recommended. Failure to identify and treat anxiety and depression increases the risk for poor quality of life and potential disease-related morbidity and mortality. This guideline adaptation is part of a larger survivorship guideline series.

CONCLUSION

Although clinicians may not be able to prevent some of the chronic or late medical effects of cancer, they have a vital role in mitigating the negative emotional and behavioral sequelae. Recognizing and treating effectively those who manifest symptoms of anxiety or depression will reduce the human cost of cancer.

The 2021 European Group on Graves' orbitopathy (EUGOGO) clinical practice guidelines for the medical management of Graves' orbitopathy

Graves' orbitopathy (GO) is the main extrathyroidal manifestation of Graves' disease (GD). Choice of treatment should be based on the assessment of clinical activity and severity of GO. Early referral to specialized centers is fundamental for most patients with GO. Risk factors include smoking, thyroid dysfunction, high serum level of thyrotropin receptor antibodies, radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment, and hypercholesterolemia. In mild and active GO, control of risk factors, local treatments, and selenium (selenium-deficient areas) are usually sufficient; if RAI treatment is selected to manage GD, low-dose oral prednisone prophylaxis is needed, especially if risk factors coexist. For both active moderate-to-severe and sight-threatening GO, antithyroid drugs are preferred when managing Graves' hyperthyroidism. In moderate-to-severe and active GO i.v. glucocorticoids are more effective and better tolerated than oral glucocorticoids. Based on current evidence and efficacy/safety profile, costs and reimbursement, drug availability, long-term effectiveness, and patient choice after extensive counseling, a combination of i.v. methylprednisolone and mycophenolate sodium is recommended as first-line treatment. A cumulative dose of 4.5 g of i.v. methylprednisolone in 12 weekly infusions is the optimal regimen. Alternatively, higher cumulative doses not exceeding 8 g can be used as monotherapy in most severe cases and constant/inconstant diplopia. Second-line treatments for moderate-to-severe and active GO include (a) the second course of i.v. methylprednisolone (7.5 g) subsequent to careful ophthalmic and biochemical evaluation, (b) oral prednisone/prednisolone combined with either cyclosporine or azathioprine; (c) orbital radiotherapy combined with oral or i.v. glucocorticoids, (d) teprotumumab; (e) rituximab and (f) tocilizumab. Sight-threatening GO is treated with several high single doses of i.v. methylprednisolone per week and, if unresponsive, with urgent orbital decompression. Rehabilitative surgery (orbital decompression, squint, and eyelid surgery) is indicated for inactive residual GO manifestations.

Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Preferred Practice Pattern(®) Guidelines

PRIMARY OPEN-ANGLE GLAUCOMA PREFERRED PRACTICE PATTERN®

GUIDELINES

Evidence-based update of the Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Preferred Practice Pattern® (PPP) guidelines, describing the diagnosis and management of patients with primary open-angle glaucoma with an algorithm for patient management and detailed recommendations for evaluation and treatment options.

European Stroke Initiative Recommendations for Stroke Management – Update 2003

This article represents the update of 'European Stroke Initiative Recommendations for Stroke Management', first published in this Journal in 2000. The recommendations are endorsed by the 3 European societies which are represented in the European Stroke Initiative: the European Stroke Council, the European Neurological Society and the European Federation of Neurological Societies.

An intensive communication intervention for the critically ill

PURPOSE

We sought to determine the effects of a communication process that was designed to encourage the use of advanced supportive technology when it is of benefit, but to limit its burdens when it is ineffective. We compared usual care with a proactive, multidisciplinary method of communicating that prospectively identified for patients and families the criteria that would determine whether a care plan was effective at meeting the goals of the patient. This process allowed caregivers to be informed of patient preferences about continued advanced supportive technology when its continuation would result in a compromised functional outcome or death.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a before-and-after study in 530 adult medical patients who were consecutively admitted to a university tertiary care hospital for intensive care. Multidisciplinary meetings were held within 72 hours of critical care admission. Patients, families, and the critical care team discussed the care plan and the patients' goals and expectations for the outcome of critical care. Clinical "milestones" indicative of recovery were identified with time frames for their occurrence. Follow-up meetings were held to discuss palliative care options when continued advanced supportive technology was not achieving the patient's goals. We measured length of stay, mortality, and provider team and family consensus in 134 patients before the intensive communication intervention and in 396 patients after the intervention.

RESULTS

Intensive communication significantly reduced the median length of stay from 4 days (interquartile range, 2 to 11 days) to 3 days (2 to 6 days, P = 0.01 by survival analysis). This reduction remained significant after adjustment for acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) 3 score [risk ratio (RR) = 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66 to 0.99; P = 0.04). Subgroup analysis revealed that this reduction occurred in our target group, patients with acuity scores in the highest quartile who died (RR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.92; P = 0.02). The intervention, which allowed dying patients earlier access to palliative care, was not associated with increased mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive communication was associated with a reduction in critical care use by patients who died. Our multidisciplinary process targeted advanced supportive technology to patients who survived and allowed the earlier withdrawal of advanced supportive technology when it was ineffective.

Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update)

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. This guideline is on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes and updates the 2015 IWGDF infection guideline. On the basis of patient, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICOs) developed by the infection committee, in conjunction with internal and external reviewers and consultants, and on systematic reviews the committee conducted on the diagnosis of infection (new) and treatment of infection (updated from 2015), we offer 27 recommendations. These cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infection, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Of note, we have updated this scheme for the first time since we developed it 15 years ago. We also review the microbiology of diabetic foot infections, including how to collect samples and to process them to identify causative pathogens. Finally, we discuss the approach to treating diabetic foot infections, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and for bone infections, when and how to approach surgical treatment, and which adjunctive treatments we think are or are not useful for the infectious aspects of diabetic foot problems. For this version of the guideline, we also updated four tables and one figure from the 2016 guideline. We think that following the principles of diagnosing and treating diabetic foot infections outlined in this guideline can help clinicians to provide better care for these patients.