Search

The quality of reporting practice guidelines is often poor, and there is no widely accepted guidance or standards for such reporting in health care. The international RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) Working Group was established to address this gap. The group followed an existing framework for developing guidelines for health research reporting and the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach. A checklist and an explanation and elaboration statement were developed. The RIGHT checklist includes 22 items that are considered essential for good reporting of practice guidelines: basic information (items 1 to 4), background (items 5 to 9), evidence (items 10 to 12), recommendations (items 13 to 15), review and quality assurance (items 16 and 17), funding and declaration and management of interests (items 18 and 19), and other information (items 20 to 22). The RIGHT checklist can assist developers in reporting guidelines, support journal editors and peer reviewers when considering guideline reports, and help health care practitioners understand and implement a guideline., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

In May 1994, the regional chamber of physicians of Westfalia/Lippe, Germany, introduced their qualifying course in family medicine with a new didactic approach: It changed from a more traditional lecture-based style to the emphasis of problem-based learning. The decision to do this was mainly driven by two reasons: firstly, the common experience of a declining attendance during regular whole day lectures and, secondly, the goal to implement regional quality-seminars following the course. In addition, the federal chamber of physicians published a guidebook with recommendations favoring a more problem-based approach to family medicine in order to implement changes. Although there is still much hesitance in Germany towards the implementation of problem-based learning, we think that this approach cannot only facilitate factual learning but also stimulates other important goals of medical education. Because of time restrictions, it was not possible to assess the outcome. However, participants valued their experience relatively high in a process-evaluation conducted during and after the course.