Delirium frequently occurs among hospital in-patients, with significant attributable healthcare costs. It is associated with long-term adverse outcomes, including an eightfold increased risk of subsequent dementia. The purpose of this article is to inform clinicians of the best practices for spotting, stopping and treating delirium and provide guidance on common challenging clinical dilemmas. For spotting delirium, suggested screening tools are the 4 ‘A's Test (in general medical settings) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). Prevention is best achieved with multicomponent interventions and targeted strategies focusing on: (a) avoiding iatrogenic causes; (b) brain optimisation by ensuring smooth bodily functioning; (c) maintaining social interactions and normality. Non-pharmacological approaches are the first line for treatment; they largely mirror prevention strategies, but the focus of empirical evidence is on prevention. Although sufficient evidence is lacking for most pharmacological approaches, an antipsychotic at low doses for short durations may be of utility for highly distressing or high-risk situations, particularly in hyperactive delirium, but only as a last resort.

Nutritional therapy should follow evidence-based practice, thus several societies regarding nutrition and critical care have developed specific Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG). However, to be regarded as trustworthy, the quality of the CPG for critically ill patients and its recommendations need to be high. This systematic review aimed to appraise the methodology and recommendations of nutrition CPG for critically ill patients. We performed a systematic review (protocol number CRD42020184199) with literature search conducted on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and other four specific databases of guidelines up to October 2021. Two reviewers, independently, assessed titles and abstracts and potentially eligible full-text reports to determine eligibility and subsequently four reviewers appraised the guidelines quality using the Advancing Guideline Development, Reporting and Evaluation in Health Care instrument II (AGREE-II) and AGREE-Recommendation Excellence (AGREE-REX). Ten CPG for nutrition in critically ill patients were identified. Only Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine had a total acceptable quality and were recommended for daily practice according AGREE-II. None of the CPG recommendations had an overall quality score above 70 %, thus being classified as moderate quality according AGREE-REX. The methodological evaluation of the critically ill adult patient CPG revealed significant discrepancies and showed a need for improvement in its development and/or reporting. In addition, recommendations about nutrition care process presented a moderate quality.

The knowledge to action (KTA) process proposed by Graham et al (2006) is a framework to facilitate the development and application of research evidence into clinical practice. The KTA process consists of the knowledge creation cycle and the action cycle. The Evidence Based Review of Stroke Rehabilitation is a foundational part of the knowledge creation cycle and has helped guide the development of best practice recommendations in stroke. The Rehabilitation Knowledge to Action Project is an audit-feedback process for the clinical implementation of best practice guidelines, which follows the action cycle. The objective of this review was to: (1) contextualize the Evidence Based Review of Stroke Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation Knowledge to Action Project within the KTA model and (2) show how this process led to improved evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation. Through this process, a single centre was able to change clinical practice and promote a culture that supports the use of evidence-based practices in stroke rehabilitation.

Objectives: To describe the first hospital-based health technology assessment (HTA) program in a public hospital in Argentina, and report some clinical, educational, economic and organizational results after 10 years of its implementation.

Methods: A hospital-based HTA program was created in March 2001 at Hospital Garrahan (Buenos Aires, Argentina), a national pediatric facility with a self-managed budget. Its main goal is to promote a rational and evidence-based technologic development. The program consists of HTA reports for technology acquisition, clinical practice guidelines (CPG), capacity building in research and management, and technical support for health services research (HSR). The evaluation cycle comprises: prioritization, evidence synthesis, dissemination and monitoring. We report program performance, comment educational and organizational effects, and discuss unresolved issues and future challenges.

Results: During the first 10 years the program produced 18 HTA reports on drugs (6 = 33 percent), therapeutic (6 = 33 percent), preventive (2 = 11 percent) or diagnostic (2 = 11 percent) procedures and institutional programs (3 = 17 percent). The scope covered effectiveness (12 = 67 percent), safety (10 = 56 percent), budget impact (6 = 33 percent), cost-effectiveness (2 = 11 percent) and organizational impact (3 = 17 percent). Mean time from request to report was 10 months. Eleven pediatric CPGs were submitted to expert consensus and disseminated for full-text Web access. A 1-year course on research and management was completed by 225 professionals in 6 years, and twenty-two projects for HSR were coached.

Conclusions: Our experience shows that an HTA program is both feasible and useful in a public hospital of a developing country. Promotion of hospital-based HTA, professional integration in HTA activities and network collaboration to discuss unresolved issues with colleagues can multiply the benefits and optimize the use of hospital budgets.

This paper describes a process of identifying best practice guidelines for non-pharmacological management for individuals with dementia and disseminating them to a group of frontline practitioners in specialized geriatric services. Our dissemination plan involved early participation of practitioners, development of a chart summarizing five guidelines showing commonalities, contrasts, and gaps in the guidelines, and their interpretation, colour-coded for the strength of the evidence on which they were based. Two sequential workshops were held in which recommendations for action were developed. Outcomes of the process included a resource manual, a network of practitioners, and action recommendations based upon survey data. An early follow-up evaluation showed increased adoption of guidelines.

Objectives: Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common diseases of childhood, representing a major disease burden on the society. New evidence-based guidelines for AOM, focusing on children under 7 years of age, were introduced in Finland in 1999. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing those guidelines in Finland.

Methods: A 5-year prospective trial was conducted in thirty community primary healthcare centers in Finland. All AOM patients between 0 and 6 years of age visiting the study health centers for the first time, for this episode of illness, during 1 week in November 1998 (n = 579) and November 2002 (n = 369) were included in this study. The outcome measure was the percentage of symptom-free patients.

Results: The mean direct cost of an AOM episode per patient stayed almost the same after implementing the guidelines, €152 in 1998 and €150 in 2002. After implementing the guidelines, the percentage of symptom-free patients was 10 percentage points higher than before the guidelines. The treatment after the implementation of the guidelines, thus, was a dominant strategy.

Conclusions: Implementing the guidelines to the treatment of AOM in children was associated with extra health benefits at slightly lower direct costs and, thus, is a dominant strategy. The focus of this study was on the short-term effects of the treatment; including long-term effects in the analysis might affect the results.

Aims: To determine whether guidelines relating to the diagnosis and treatment of acute otitis media (AOM) in children are followed in a tertiary paediatric emergency department (ED).

Methods: A literature search was undertaken to identify national and international guidelines relating to the diagnosis and management of AOM in children. The guidelines were assessed for their applicability to UK practice. A retrospective case note audit was undertaken. Children presenting to the ED with a discharge diagnosis of AOM over a two month period were identified from the ED computer discharge system. The notes were analysed for compliance with the identified guidelines.

Results: 50 children were identified (age range three months to 11 years). Eighty-six per cent of children received antibiotics. Fifty-two per cent of children had documented signs of AOM. Twenty-five of these children received antibiotics (22 in accordance with guidelines, three not in accordance with guidelines, antibiotic not documented in one case). Thirty-nine per cent of children received antibiotics inappropriately. In all cases, the antibiotic dosage was below the dose recommended in all guidelines.

Conclusion: There is poor compliance with national (and international) guidelines for the management of AOM in this ED. National guidelines must be introduced into the department by direct teaching at senior house officer and middle grade level, a re-audit must be carried out and regular reviews of the notes of patients diagnosed with AOM must be undertaken to ensure compliance with guidelines is maintained.

Objectives: The study determined whether the results of recently completed systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions were used in the development of new provincial policies for public health practice.

Methods: This telephone survey included all members from five review groups who updated the Ontario Mandatory Health Programs and Services guidelines for Public Health in 2000. Independent variables included characteristics of the systematic reviews, organization, and the individual. Outcomes included the use of the reviews in developing new policies and the extent to which the reviews led to new recommendations for practice. Descriptive summaries as well as multiple linear regression were conducted.

Results: Eighty-five percent of decision-makers agreed to participate in the study. Ninety-six percent of respondents reported that the systematic reviews played a part in developing the new guidelines, while 47 percent indicated that the reviews contributed a great deal to the development of new recommendations for practice. The multiple linear regression model explained 42 percent of the variation in use of the reviews for developing new recommendations for practice. Significant predictor variables included the importance of the reviews in comparison to other sources of information and relevance of the reviews to the policy decisions.

Conclusion: Public health decision-makers in Ontario have very positive perceptions of the usefulness of systematic reviews in policy development. Therefore, ongoing efforts to promote the usefulness and relevance of systematic reviews to public health decision-makers should remain a priority for health services researchers.

A postal survey was undertaken to assess otolaryngologists’ awareness, implementation and perceived weaknesses of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) clinical guideline for the Management of Sore Throat and Indications for Tonsillectomy. The reply rate was 77 per cent. There was high awareness of the guideline and while 84 per cent of the correspondents felt that they followed the guideline, or a guideline based on it, only 35 per cent were able to accurately recall the four main criteria recommended for listing for tonsillectomy. Twenty-five per cent of the surgeons were in departments that had ongoing implementation programmes for these guidelines but only 10 per cent of surgeons were in departments that had audited their compliance. The most common criticism of the guideline (22 per cent) was that it failed to consider the impact of the disease process on the patient’s quality of life. Suggestions made to improve the guideline are included.

Objectives: To improve processes of ambulatory care for patients with type 2 diabetes in a nationwide program.

Methods: Interrupted time-series analysis with audits of practice. To implement selected recommendations of national guidelines, educational outreach visits (office visits or phone discussions) were offered to all French physicians who diagnosed one case of type 2 diabetes during a six-month intervention period. Outcome measures were the number of HBA1c measurements recorded monthly in the medical insurance computer database and the proportion of diabetic patients for whom one test had been reimbursed during the previous six months (HBA1c, fasting blood glucose) or previous twelve months (serum cholesterol, serum creatinine, urine microalbumin, electrocardiogram, ophthalmologic examination).

Results: A total of 15,522 office visits and 9,062 telephone discussions were performed among 22,940 physicians. The increase in the monthly proportion of the number of HBA1c tests to the total number of laboratory tests was higher during the intervention period than during the preintervention (p value<.0001) and postintervention periods (p value<.001). Between the first audit (n=651,574) and the third audit (n=911,871), HBA1c measurements increased from 41.2% to 60.5% and blood glucose measurements performed alone decreased from 38.8% to 18.7%. Urine microalbumin measurements increased from 10.6% before to 15.3% after intervention. Only a slight increase was observed for other tests.

Conclusions: Physician to physician outreach visits can be an effective way to improve the processes of care for diabetes and to routinize nationwide use of practice guidelines.

Objectives: To identify predictors of high-quality clinical practice guidelines.

Methods: A total of 86 guidelines from 11 countries were assessed by four independent appraisers per guideline using the AGREE instrument (23 items). Six aspects of guideline development were considered to explain the variation in quality scores: care level (primary/secondary care), scope (diagnosis/treatment), type of guideline (new/update), year of publication, type of agency (governmental/professional), and whether the guideline was produced within a structured and coordinated program.

Results: Guidelines produced within a guideline program and by governmental agencies had higher scores than their counterparts. Differences in the applicability of the guidelines could not be explained by the variables studied.

Conclusions: To ensure high quality, clinical guidelines should be produced within a structured and coordinated program. Professional organizations or specialist societies that aim to develop guidelines may adopt quality criteria from leading guideline agencies.

We challenge assumptions that have guided much research and policy aimed at understanding and reducing medical practice variation. Paramount is the focus on doctors as the cause of variation to the neglect of other possible influences. Some research literature suggests that patients, families, and the community context of practice may also influence treatment decisions. Failure to question present assumptions, despite weak evidence in support of them, may account for inability to explain persistent practice variation, develop appropriate implementable guidelines, or anticipate the effect on treatment decisions of greater patient involvement. In this paper, we discuss the weak response to the NIH Consensus Conference on early stage breast cancer because it may have reflected these problems. We urge a more complex and more empirical approach in explaining treatment choice and guidelines sensitive to the potential for value differences.

Assessing the costs and benefits of developing a clinical practice guideline is important because investments in guidelines compete with investments in other clinical programs. Despite the considerable number of guidelines in many industrialized countries, little is known about their costs and cost-effectiveness. The authors have developed specific measures to determine the cost-effectiveness of guidelines, using a German evidence-based guideline on obesity for the diagnosis and treatment of obese patients as a model. The measures are: the number of people needed to cure, the number of people needed to prevent from developing the disease in question, and the number of people to treat in order to break even.

Clinical practice guidelines have been available to clinicians for almost two decades, but the consistency of their implementation in practice remains highly variable. This paper describes the various processes and mechanisms used by one managed care organization to develop clinical guidelines and promote their adoption. Some of these mechanisms include provision of individual physician report cards, financial incentives, and various documentation tools that serve as reminders of guideline recommendations and provide an easy format to document recommended services.

There have been measurement challenges in evaluating the effectiveness of selected interventions designed to enhance guideline compliance. Most of these challenges relate to reliability and validity concerns regarding the three primary data sources used in the evaluation process: medical records, administrative claims data, and member survey data. Some of the interventions the health plan has implemented to address these measurement challenges include using hybrid methods of data collection and developing collaborative partnerships with outside organizations to enhance the accuracy and completeness of the available data. Outcomes of these efforts are described, as are physician response and recommendations for future enhancement of practice guidelines.

Objectives: To identify major differences and similarities in the development of clinical guidelines in different European countries.

Methods: A collaboration of researchers is funded by the European Commission to compare the approaches to guideline development in collaborators' countries. The program encompasses a series of tasks, the first being to identify and document current guideline procedures in the collaborating countries. A survey gathered information on guideline production, dissemination, and implementation in the 10 European countries involved in the project consortium: Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Scotland, Spain (both the Basque Country and Catalonia), and Switzerland.

Results: Seven countries have a national policy on guideline production, dissemination, and implementation, and three countries are discussing their policies. A majority of guidelines are currently produced at the national level in six of the countries and at the regional or local level in the other four. Central or national funding supports guideline production in six countries. Additional sources of funding include medical societies, pharmaceutical companies, and health insurance companies. Several of the countries have published or are preparing evaluations of their dissemination strategies.

Conclusions: The survey highlighted wide variation in the methods and policies of guideline development in Europe. The Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation in Europe (AGREE) Collaboration research program will identify the characteristics of the “better” guideline programs and will provide the basis for more research-generated policy initiatives in the future, helping to ensure that guidelines play a major role in improving patient care in the millennium.

Practice guidelines are rapidly becoming preferred decision-making resources in medicine, as advances in technology and pharmaceutics continue to expand. An evidence-based approach to the development of practice guidelines serves to anchor healthcare policy to scientific documentation, and in conjunction with practitioner opinion can provide a powerful and practical clinical tool. Three sources of information are essential to an evidence-based approach: a) an exhaustive literature synthesis; b) meta-analysis; and c) consensus opinion. The systematic merging of evidence from these sources offers healthcare providers a scientifically supportable document that is flexible enough to deal with clinically complex problems. Evidence-based practice guidelines, in conjunction with practice standards and practice advisories, are invaluable resources for clinical decision making. The judicious use of these documents by practitioners will serve to improve the efficiency and safety of health care well.

Clinicians make judgments under conditions of uncertainty. Decision research has shown that in uncertain situations individuals do not always act rationally, coherently, or to maximize their expected utility. Advocates of clinical guidelines believe that these guidelines will eliminate some of the cognitive biases that the practitioner may introduce into the medical decision-making process in an attempt to reduce its uncertainty. Other physicians have grave doubts about guidelines' application in practice. Guideline implementation lags well behind their development. Studies of practicing physicians and a survey of clinicians in one specialty and setting indicate that experienced clinicians may be implementing guidelines selectively. Many clinicians are concerned that guidelines are based on randomized trials and do not reflect the complexity of the real world, in which a decision's context and framework are important. Their reluctance also may be due to the difficulty of applying general guidelines to specific clinical situations. The problem will only increase in the future. The patients of the 21st century will be older and have more complex disease states. Physicians will have more patient-specific therapies and need to exercise more sophisticated clinical judgment. They may be more willing to use guidelines in making those judgments if research can demonstrate guidelines' effectiveness in improving decision making for individual patients.

Clinical practice guidelines are expanding their scope of authority from clinical decision making to collective policy making, and promise to gain ground as resource allocation tools in coming years. A close examination of how guidelines approach patient selection criteria offers insight into their ethical implications when used as resource allocation or rationing instruments. The purposes of this paper are: a) to examine the structure of allocative reasoning found in clinical guidelines; b) to identify the ethical principles implied and compare how guidelines enact these principles with how explicit systems-level rationing exercises and health policy analyses have approached them; and c) to offer some preliminary suggestions for how these ethical issues might be addressed in the process of guideline development. The resulting framework can be used by guideline developers and users to understand and address some of the ethical issues raised by guidelines for the use of scarce technologies.

Objective: To identify and compare clinical practice guideline appraisal instruments.

Methods: Appraisal instruments, defined as instruments intended to be used for guideline evaluation, were identified by searching MEDLINE (1966–99) using the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) practice guidelines, reviewing bibliographies of the retrieved articles, and contacting authors of guideline appraisal instruments. Two reviewers independently examined the questions/statements from all the instruments and thematically grouped them. The 44 groupings were collapsed into 10 guideline attributes. Using the items, two reviewers independently undertook a content analysis of the instruments.

Results: Fifteen instruments were identified, and two were excluded because they were not focused on evaluation. All instruments were developed after 1992 and contained 8 to 142 questions/statements. Of the 44 items used for the content analysis, the number of items covered by each instrument ranged from 6 to 34. Only the instrument by Cluzeau and colleagues included at least one item for each of the 10 attributes, and it addressed 28 of the 44 items. This instrument and that of Shaneyfelt et al. are the only instruments that have so far been validated.

Conclusions: A comprehensive, concise, and valid instrument could help users systematically judge the quality and utility of clinical practice guidelines. The current instruments vary widely in length and comprehensiveness. There is insufficient evidence to support the exclusive use of any one instrument, although the Cluzeau instrument has received the greatest evaluation. More research is required on the reliability and validity of existing guideline appraisal instruments before any one instrument can become widely adopted.