Search

Objective To assess the association of patient and hospital characteristics with adherence to guidelines for intrauterine insemination (IUI) care. Design Retrospective cohort study using multilevel regression analysis. Characteristics studied at the patient level were female age, type and duration of subfertility, diagnosis and number of started IUI cycles. At the hospital level, the characteristics studied were hospital size, teaching hospital, in vitro fertilization (IVF) licence and number of physicians involved in the IUI programme. Data were obtained from medical records and questionnaires for gynaecologists. Setting and Participants Five hundred and fifty-eight subfertile couples who underwent IUI treatment at 10 Dutch hospitals. Main Outcome Measures Adherence to systematically developed guideline-based performance indicators describing 20 processes of IUI care. Results A total of 558 couples who started 2334 IUI cycles participated. Guideline adherence in IUI care was often substandard and varied considerably between hospitals. Variation in guideline adherence in IUI care was associated with the patient characteristics ’diagnosis’ and ‘female age’. Only adherence to the guideline recommendation regarding ‘screening for tubal occlusion’ was associated with hospital characteristics (‘hospital size’ and ‘IVF licence’). Large explained variances up to 39% were found for the different models. Conclusions A number of patient and hospital characteristics were associated with variation in guideline adherence in IUI care, particularly the patient characteristics ’diagnosis’ and ‘female age’. The identification of different subgroups in the patient population and different types of hospitals with regard to the extent of guideline adherence in IUI care is important for the tailoring of interventions to improve IUI care. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

BACKGROUND Proper use of clinical practice guidelines can decrease variation in care between settings. However, actual use of fertility guidelines is suboptimal and in need of improvement. Hence, a cluster-randomized controlled trial was designed to study the effects of two strategies to implement national Dutch guidelines on comprehensive fertility care. METHODS Sixteen fertility clinics participated in the trial. A minimal, professional-oriented implementation strategy of audit and feedback was tested versus a maximal multi-faceted strategy that was both professional and patient oriented. The extent of adherence to guideline recommendations, reflected in quality indicator scores, was the primary outcome measure. To gain an insight into unwanted side effects, patient anxiety and depression scores were gathered as secondary outcomes. Data collection encompassed medical record search, patient and professional questionnaires. RESULTS A total of 1499 couples were included at baseline and 1396 at the after-measurement. No overall significant improvement in indicator scores was found for either strategy [odds ratios ranging from 0.23 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.06–0.95) to 6.66 (95% CI: 0.33–132.8]. Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly for both groups, although selected anxiety scores appeared lower in the maximal intervention group. Process evaluation of the trial revealed positive patient experiences with the intervention material [e.g. an increased understanding of their doctor's treatment policy (61%), an increased ability to ask questions about the treatment (61%)]. Professionals’ appreciation of intervention elements varied, and execution of the multi-faceted strategy appeared incomplete. DISCUSSION Absence of an intervention effect may be due to the nature of the strategies, incomplete execution or flaws in study design. Process evaluation data raise the question of whether professionals should be the only stakeholder responsible for guideline implementation. This study therefore contributes to an increased understanding of fertility guideline implementation in general, and the role of patients in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Communicable disease crises can endanger the health care system and often require special guidelines. Understanding reasons for nonadherence to crisis guidelines is needed to improve crisis management. We identified and measured barriers and conditions for optimal adherence as perceived by 4 categories of health care professionals. Methods: In-depth interviews were performed (n = 26) to develop a questionnaire for a cross-sectional survey of microbiologists (100% response), infection preventionists (74% response), public health physicians (96% response), and public health nurses (82% response). The groups were asked to appraise barriers encountered during 4 outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS], Clostridium difficile ribotype 027, rubella, and avian influenza) according to a 5-point Likert scale. When at least 33% of the participants responded “strongly agree,” “agree,” or “rather agree than disagree,” a barrier was defined as “often experienced.” The common (“generic”) barriers were included in a univariate and multivariate model. Barriers specific to the various groups were studied as well. Results: Crisis guidelines were found to have 4 generic barriers to adherence: (1) lack of imperative or precise wording, (2) lack of easily identifiable instructions specific to each profession, (3) lack of concrete performance targets, and (4) lack of timely and adequate guidance on personal protective equipment and other safety measures. The cross-sectional study also yielded profession-specific sets of often-experienced barriers. Conclusion: To improve adherence to crisis guidelines, the generic barriers should be addressed when developing guidelines, irrespective of the infectious agent. Profession-specific barriers require profession-specific strategies to change attitudes, ensure organizational facilities, and provide an adequate setting for crisis management. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Antibiotics are an extremely important weapon in the fight against infections. However, antimicrobial resistance is a growing problem. That is why the appropriate use of antibiotics is of great importance. A proper analysis of factors influencing appropriate antibiotic use is at the heart of an effective improvement programme, as interventions can only result in improved medical behaviour if they are well attuned to the problems, the target group, and the setting in which the change is to take place. Determinants of appropriate and inappropriate prescribing are not only found in patient knowledge and behaviour, in the way medical professionals think and act, and in the way in which patient care is organised, but also in the wider, socio-cultural environment of doctors and their patients. We present several relevant factors at each of these 4 levels and various possible measures that could be an effective response to them. The reasons why antibiotic use is inappropriate are complex. This means that any programme to rationalise antibiotic use – if it is to be effective – will have to include activities at all 4 levels discussed above. A national programme for ‘appropriate antibiotic use’ could be considered, including patient, professional and organisational-oriented activities. In addition, close international cooperation is required involving international guidelines, agreements, monitoring and feedback of information, and implementation programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses an evaluation of two methods in developing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). It mentions that a profession-centred consensus procedure has been implemented by the Dutch Dental Association in the Netherlands while a local consensus procedure observes a top-down approach. It notes that the study involved two panels and two existing dental peer groups. Results show that the expert panels were able to create CPGs with superior quality using the Rand modified Delphi procedure as compared to those of the peer groups.