Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline: Reconstruction after Skin Cancer Resection.

SUMMARY: A multi-disciplinary work group involving stakeholders from various backgrounds and societies was convened to develop guidelines for the management of reconstruction after skin cancer resection. The goal was to identify areas of common ground and provide evidence-based recommendations to improve patient care. Given the heterogeneity of reconstructive techniques and clinical scenarios, investigation centered around common elements in the process. In some cases, a distinction was made between treatment options in the office-based setting as opposed to those in the facility setting. A systematic literature review was performed, and an established appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology). Final recommendations are related to concepts concerning the timing of reconstruction, management of anticoagulation, use of antibiotics, methods of pain control, and follow-up assessment. At times, there was insufficient evidence to make high-level recommendations. The literature analysis highlights the need for additional methodologically robust studies in this area, to help guide clinical practice.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline: Reconstruction after skin cancer resection.

A multi-disciplinary work group involving stakeholders from various backgrounds and societies was convened to develop guidelines for the management of reconstruction after skin cancer resection. The goal was to identify areas of common ground and provide evidence-based recommendations to improve patient care. Given the heterogeneity of reconstructive techniques and clinical scenarios, investigation centered around common elements in the process. In some cases, a distinction was made between treatment options in the office-based setting as opposed to those in the facility setting. A systematic literature review was performed, and an established appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology). Final recommendations are related to concepts concerning the timing of reconstruction, management of anticoagulation, use of antibiotics, methods of pain control, and follow-up assessment. At times, there was insufficient evidence to make high-level recommendations. The literature analysis highlights the need for additional methodologically robust studies in this area, to help guide clinical practice.

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline: Reconstruction after Skin Cancer Resection.

SUMMARY: A multi-disciplinary work group involving stakeholders from various backgrounds and societies was convened to develop guidelines for the management of reconstruction after skin cancer resection. The goal was to identify areas of common ground and provide evidence-based recommendations to improve patient care. Given the heterogeneity of reconstructive techniques and clinical scenarios, investigation centered around common elements in the process. In some cases, a distinction was made between treatment options in the office-based setting as opposed to those in the facility setting. A systematic literature review was performed, and an established appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology). Final recommendations are related to concepts concerning the timing of reconstruction, management of anticoagulation, use of antibiotics, methods of pain control, and follow-up assessment. At times, there was insufficient evidence to make high-level recommendations. The literature analysis highlights the need for additional methodologically robust studies in this area, to help guide clinical practice.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline: Reconstruction after skin cancer resection

A multi-disciplinary work group involving stakeholders from various backgrounds and societies was convened to develop guidelines for the management of reconstruction after skin cancer resection. The goal was to identify areas of common ground and provide evidence-based recommendations to improve patient care. Given the heterogeneity of reconstructive techniques and clinical scenarios, investigation centered around common elements in the process. In some cases, a distinction was made between treatment options in the office-based setting as opposed to those in the facility setting. A systematic literature review was performed, and an established appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology). Final recommendations are related to concepts concerning the timing of reconstruction, management of anticoagulation, use of antibiotics, methods of pain control, and follow-up assessment. At times, there was insufficient evidence to make high-level recommendations. The literature analysis highlights the need for additional methodologically robust studies in this area, to help guide clinical practice.

Addressing public criticism: a potential HIPAA violation.

Although patients are able to speak openly about their healthcare experience in negative reviews, laws protecting the privacy of the patient constrain providers from responding as freely. Unfortunately, violation of this principle occurs when responding to online patient criticism. We describe a case of a physician assistant revealing protected health information of a patient in response to a critical New York Times article. Providers must be wary of violating patients' privacy, even when they are criticized online. Addressing patients' concerns and neutral, caring online responses may be the physician's best options for responding to negative reviews.

AAD/ACMS/ASDSA/ASMS 2012 appropriate use criteria for Mohs micrographic surgery: a report of the American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and the American Society for Mohs Surgery.

The appropriate use criteria process synthesizes evidence-based medicine, clinical practice experience, and expert judgment. The American Academy of Dermatology in collaboration with the American College of Mohs Surgery, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and the American Society for Mohs Surgery has developed appropriate use criteria for 270 scenarios for which Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is frequently considered based on tumor and patient characteristics. This document reflects the rating of appropriateness of MMS for each of these clinical scenarios by a ratings panel in a process based on the appropriateness method developed by the RAND Corp (Santa Monica, CA)/University of California-Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA). At the conclusion of the rating process, consensus was reached for all 270 (100%) scenarios by the Ratings Panel, with 200 (74.07%) deemed as appropriate, 24 (8.89%) as uncertain, and 46 (17.04%) as inappropriate. For the 69 basal cell carcinoma scenarios, 53 were deemed appropriate, 6 uncertain, and 10 inappropriate. For the 143 squamous cell carcinoma scenarios, 102 were deemed appropriate, 7 uncertain, and 34 inappropriate. For the 12 lentigo maligna and melanoma in situ scenarios, 10 were deemed appropriate, 2 uncertain, and 0 inappropriate. For the 46 rare cutaneous malignancies scenarios, 35 were deemed appropriate, 9 uncertain, and 2 inappropriate. These appropriate use criteria have the potential to impact health care delivery, reimbursement policy, and physician decision making on patient selection for MMS, and aim to optimize the use of MMS for scenarios in which the expected clinical benefit is anticipated to be the greatest. In addition, recognition of those scenarios rated as uncertain facilitates an understanding of areas that would benefit from further research. Each clinical scenario identified in this document is crafted for the average patient and not the exception. Thus, the ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of MMS should be determined by the expertise and clinical experience of the physician.

AAD/ACMS/ASDSA/ASMS 2012 appropriate use criteria for Mohs micrographic surgery: a report of the American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and the American Society for Mohs Surgery.

The appropriate use criteria process synthesizes evidence-based medicine, clinical practice experience, and expert judgment. The American Academy of Dermatology in collaboration with the American College of Mohs Surgery, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and the American Society for Mohs Surgery has developed appropriate use criteria for 270 scenarios for which Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is frequently considered based on tumor and patient characteristics. This document reflects the rating of appropriateness of MMS for each of these clinical scenarios by a ratings panel in a process based on the appropriateness method developed by the RAND Corp (Santa Monica, CA)/University of California-Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA). At the conclusion of the rating process, consensus was reached for all 270 (100%) scenarios by the Ratings Panel, with 200 (74.07%) deemed as appropriate, 24 (8.89%) as uncertain, and 46 (17.04%) as inappropriate. For the 69 basal cell carcinoma scenarios, 53 were deemed appropriate, 6 uncertain, and 10 inappropriate. For the 143 squamous cell carcinoma scenarios, 102 were deemed appropriate, 7 uncertain, and 34 inappropriate. For the 12 lentigo maligna and melanoma in situ scenarios, 10 were deemed appropriate, 2 uncertain, and 0 inappropriate. For the 46 rare cutaneous malignancies scenarios, 35 were deemed appropriate, 9 uncertain, and 2 inappropriate. These appropriate use criteria have the potential to impact health care delivery, reimbursement policy, and physician decision making on patient selection for MMS, and aim to optimize the use of MMS for scenarios in which the expected clinical benefit is anticipated to be the greatest. In addition, recognition of those scenarios rated as uncertain facilitates an understanding of areas that would benefit from further research. Each clinical scenario identified in this document is crafted for the average patient and not the exception. Thus, the ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of MMS should be determined by the expertise and clinical experience of the physician.