Evidence-Based Decision Support for a Structured Care Program on Polypharmacy in Multimorbidity: A Guideline Upgrade Based on a Realist Synthesis.

Evidence-based clinical guidelines generally consider single conditions, and rarely multimorbidity. We developed an evidence-based guideline for a structured care program to manage polypharmacy in multimorbidity by using a realist synthesis to update the German polypharmacy guideline including the following five methods: formal prioritization in focus groups; systematic guideline review of evidence-based multimorbidity/polypharmacy guidelines; evidence search/synthesis and recommendation development; multidisciplinary consent of recommendations; feasibility test of updated guideline. We identified the need for a better description of the target group, decision support, prioritization of medication, consideration of patient preferences and anticholinergic properties, and of healthcare interfaces. We conducted a systematic guideline review of eight guidelines and extracted and synthesized recommendations using the Ariadne principles. We also included 48 systematic reviews. We formulated and agreed upon 34 recommendations for the revised guideline. During the feasibility test, guideline use enabled 57% of GPs to identify problems, leading to medication changes in 49% and self-assessed improvement in 56% of patients. Although 58% of GPs felt that it was too long, 92% recommended it. Polypharmacy should be systematically reviewed at least annually. Patients, family members, and healthcare professionals should monitor and adjust it using prospective process validation, taking into account patient preferences and agreed treatment goals.

[General practitioners' guideline for palliative care. A survey of guideline acceptance in quality circles of primary medical care]. / Hausärztliche Leitlinie "Palliativversorgung" : Ergebnisse einer Akzeptanzbefragung in Qualitätszirkeln der Hausarztzentrierten Versorgung.

PURPOSE: The implementation of the general practitioners' (GPs) guideline for palliative care released in 2007 with consent of the developing group was accompanied by an anonymous and voluntary survey designed to assess acceptance and feasibility of the recommendations. 60 quality circles of the GP-based care program in Hesse which are run by the PMV research group were used for guideline implementation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The quality of the palliative care quality circle meeting itself was checked with a standardized questionnaire (feedback, n = 473 of 515 participating GPs). After several weeks, the follow-up questioning on acceptance of the corresponding guideline was performed (n = 391 of 440 attendees) using twelve items to evaluate the guideline recommendations. The closed questions were appraised employing a Likert scale and the open questions after classifying the free text in categories. RESULTS: 96% of the respondents considered palliative medicine to be important in daily routine. The majority agreed with form and content of this CME meeting (feedback, response rate 91%). The complexity, handling, and practical relevance of the guideline were evaluated positively (response rate 88%). 82% of GPs reported that they would recommend the guideline to colleagues. Specific, practical guideline recommendations on (non)pharmacological strategies in treating dyspnea, on reducing xerostomia and on comedication in the case of opioid treatment were confirmed by 80-94% of the participants, and 75-92% rated these recommendations as practical. CONCLUSION: The relevance of palliative care in daily routine was shown by the responses evaluating the quality circle session. The grade of acceptance of the guideline is comparable to the other GPs' guidelines with focus on pharmacotherapy. 10-13% of the respondents were not able to judge the relevance nor the practicability of selected recommendations. Future implementation should therefore consider attitude and experience with palliative care. To date, the questionnaires have not been designed to evaluate individual adherence to palliative care guideline.

['To read' does not imply 'to act upon': indicators of the acceptance of general practice guidelines. Results of a survey among quality circles of general practitioner centred care (Hausarztzentrierte Versorgung; HZV)]. / Gelesen ist noch nicht getan: Hinweise zur Akzeptanz von hausärztlichen Leitlinien. Eine Befragung in Zirkeln der Hausarztzentrierten Versorgung (HZV).

CONTEXT: Successful guideline implementation requires that the authors get feedback from target groups on the general acceptance of a guideline and the barriers to its implementation. The Guideline Group of General Practitioners (GPs) in Hesse continually surveyed participants of quality circles on pharmacotherapy who discussed these GP specific guidelines together with an analysis of their prescription behaviour. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Written survey of six general practice guidelines conducted among the members of quality circles in Hesse during 2006 and 2007. The response rate ranged from 69% (n=268; guideline on 'GP Communication Skills') and 80% (n=374; Guideline on 'Chronic Heart Failure'). The questionnaire focused on both general acceptance and the relevance and practicability of individual recommendations. RESULTS: With pharmacotherapeutic guidelines, between 75% (guideline for dyslipidaemia) and 86% (guideline for stable angina) would be recommended by the respondent GPs to colleagues. High practice relevance was attributed to the communication skills guideline by 70% of the GPs, but only about 50% would recommend it. Three quarters of the GP rated 18 out of 22 selected recommendations as being relevant to therapeutic quality assurance, and 11 of these recommendations as being practicable. Non-medical procedures requiring communication resources and time input as well as motivated patients were more often assessed as being more difficult to implement. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: A written survey is a suitable tool for gaining insight into the acceptance of diagnostic and therapeutic strategies and for investigating reasons for the refusal of or the barriers to implementation. Recommendations that are poorly accepted and less likely to be implemented as well as possible barriers should be discussed within the guideline group and during circle sessions in order to modify the recommendation and/or develop aids to assist with its transfer into everyday practice.

[Qualitative and economc impact of implementing GP guidelines in a medical practitioners' network]. / Qualitative und öko- nomische Auswirkungen der Implementierung hausärztlicher Leitlinien in ein Arztenetz.

The aims of the study were to determine whether the participants of a practitioners' network changed their prescribing behaviour according to the guidelines discussed and to assess the implications for drug costs. Guidelines concerning the prescription of lipid-lowering drugs, antidiabetics and cardiovascular drugs were introduced in quality circles with about 90 participants in a practitioners' network. All statutory health care insurance physicians of Hesse served as comparison group. The analysis of the prescription data demonstrates that the network physicians attained their pre-determined quality goals but differed with respect to the cost implications for the drug target classes. Higher prescribing rates for recommended though more expensive drugs do not necessarily raise the drug costs of the indication group, which is partly due to the substitution of other drugs. The implications on treatment costs by implementing a guideline should be assessed for all sectors of the healthcare system. This kind of data was not available for this study. It is becoming increasingly relevant to know the cost implications of a guideline recommendation since (suspected) higher costs appear to be a barrier for guideline adherence.