Search

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]

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in improving the quality of care. Data sources Relevant studies through Medline, Embase, PsychlNFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases. Study selection Two reviewers independently extracted data on topics, participants, setting, study design, and outcomes. Data synthesis Of 1104 articles identified, 72 were included in the study. Twelve reports representing nine studies (including two randomised controlled trials) used a controlled design to measure the effects of the quality improvement collaborative intervention on care processes or outcomes of care. Systematic review of these nine studies showed moderate positive results. Seven studies (including one randomised controlled trial) reported an effect on some of the selected outcome measures. Two studies (including one randomised controlled trial) did not show any significant effect. Conclusions The evidence underlying quality improvement collaboratives is positive but limited and the effects cannot be predicted with great certainty. Considering that quality improvement collaboratives seem to play a key part in current strategies focused on accelerating improvement, but may have only modest effects on outcomes at best, further knowledge of the basic components effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and success factors is crucial to determine the value of quality improvement collaboratives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: General practitioners (GPs) play a crucial part in palliative care. The quality of care can be improved by investigating and addressing barriers perceived by GPs in daily practice. The aim of this study was to investigate GPs' task perception and barriers involved in palliative care. Methods: Qualitative focus group study. We gathered together a group of GPs representing a broad range of experience in palliative care. Content analysis was performed to derive a comprehensive view of tasks and barriers in daily palliative care. Results: GPs described their palliative care tasks as satisfactory and varied, but burdensome. Palliative care tasks included somatic and psychosocial care. Opinions differed with respect to whether the coordination of care belonged to the primary GP tasks. Barriers were classified according to three levels: (1) personal: barriers related to knowledge, skills, emotions; (2) relational: barriers concerning communication and collaboration; (3) organizational: barriers related to the organization of care and compartmentalization in healthcare. Conclusions: This study revealed a complex web of tasks and barriers. It may be possible to trace back a problem (lack of knowledge, for example) on the personal level to an isolated knowledge gap, but the problem may well have originated from communication or compartmentalization problems. To maintain GPs' feeling of being at ease with palliative care requires helping them acquire the appropriate balance between technical and organizational interventions and a compassionate orientation to their terminally ill patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objectives: To develop content for an educational system for dental professionals to be used for patient-tailored evidence-based decisions regarding routine oral examinations (ROEs) and to test the model as a tool in dental education. Methods: Initially, an electronic database was developed comprising conclusive data of a structured literature search and 27 ROE clinical cases which were selected on predefined criteria. A RAND-modified Delphi procedure was successfully conducted with 31 multidisciplinary dental experts. Twenty-one selected risk factors for oral disease were assessed for feasibility and subsequently modelled into 19 risk based clinical vignettes, each representing a specific group of ROE-patients. Each vignette comprised all relevant clinical and non-clinical data. Expert judgements were collected including ROE-content, risk level, bitewing frequency and recall interval. Feedback regarding evidence was provided for each of the topics. A pilot with 35 experienced General Dental Practitioners (GDPs) was conducted to assess the reliability of the model for continuing professional development (CPD). Decisions made on content screening items, bitewing frequencies and recall interval were compared with expert opinions. Results: A comprehensive set of clinical vignettes was developed. Expert consensus was reached with regard to risk factors to be applied, content of ROE-items, bitewing frequency and recall interval. Differences between GDPs and experts were found especially concerning recall length in low-risk patient groups. Conclusions: Clinical vignettes provide a promising educational instrument for CPD to improve clinical performance. Further research is needed to test the reliability of these set of 19 vignettes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]