Evidence-based guideline for the written radiology report: methods, recommendations and implementation challenges.

The written radiology report is the dominant method by which radiologists communicate the results of diagnostic and interventional imaging procedures. It has an important impact on decisions about further investigation and management. Its form and content can be influential in reducing harm to patients and mitigating risk for practitioners but varies markedly with little standardisation in practice. Until now, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists has not had a guideline for the written report. International guidelines on this subject are not evidence based and lack description of development methods. The current guideline seeks to improve the quality of the written report by providing evidence-based recommendations for good practice. The following attributes of the report are addressed by recommendations: Content Clinical information available to the radiologist at the time the report was created Technical details of the procedure Examination quality and limitations Findings (both normal and abnormal) Comparison with previous studies Pathophysiological diagnosis Differential diagnoses Clinical correlation and/or answer to the clinical question Recommendations, particularly for further imaging and other investigations Conclusion/opinion/impression Format Length Format Language Confidence and certainty Clarity Readability Accuracy Communication of discrepancies between an original verbal or written report and the final report Proofreading/editing of own and trainee reports.

Systematic review of safety checklists for use by medical care teams in acute hospital settings--limited evidence of effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety is a fundamental component of good quality health care. Checklists have been proposed as a method of improving patient safety. This systematic review, asked "In acute hospital settings, would the use of safety checklists applied by medical care teams, compared to not using checklists, improve patient safety?" METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials published in English before September 2009. Studies were selected and appraised by two reviewers independently in consultation with colleagues, using inclusion, exclusion and appraisal criteria established a priori. RESULTS: Nine cohort studies with historical controls studies from four hospital care settings were included-intensive care unit, emergency department, surgery, and acute care. The studies used a variety of designs of safety checklists, and implemented them in different ways, however most incorporated an educational component to teach the staff how to use the checklist. The studies assessed outcomes occurring a few weeks to a maximum of 12 months post-implementation, and these outcomes were diverse.The studies were generally of low to moderate quality and of low levels of evidence, with all but one of the studies containing a high risk of bias.The results of these studies suggest some improvements in patient safety arising from use of safety checklists, but these were not consistent across all studies or for all outcomes. Some studies showed no difference in outcomes between checklist use and standard care without a checklist. Due to the variations in setting, checklist design, educational training given, and outcomes measured, it was unfeasible to accurately summarise any trends across all studies. CONCLUSIONS: The included studies suggest some benefits of using safety checklists to improve protocol adherence and patient safety, but due to the risk of bias in these studies, their results should be interpreted with caution. More high quality and studies, are needed to enable confident conclusions about the effectiveness of safety checklists in acute hospital settings.

Evidence for perinatal and child health care guidelines in crisis settings: can Cochrane help?

BACKGROUND: It is important that healthcare provided in crisis settings is based on the best available research evidence. We reviewed guidelines for child and perinatal health care in crisis situations to determine whether they were based on research evidence, whether Cochrane systematic reviews were available in the clinical areas addressed by these guidelines and whether summaries of these reviews were provided in Evidence Aid. METHODS: Broad internet searches were undertaken to identify relevant guidelines. Guidelines were appraised using AGREE and the clinical areas that were relevant to perinatal or child health were extracted. We searched The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify potentially relevant reviews. For each review we determined how many trials were included, and how many were conducted in resource-limited settings. RESULTS: Six guidelines met selection criteria. None of the included guidelines were clearly based on research evidence. 198 Cochrane reviews were potentially relevant to the guidelines. These reviews predominantly addressed nutrient supplementation, breastfeeding, malaria, maternal hypertension, premature labour and prevention of HIV transmission. Most reviews included studies from developing settings. However for large portions of the guidelines, particularly health services delivery, there were no relevant reviews. Only 18 (9.1%) reviews have summaries in Evidence Aid. CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify any evidence-based guidelines for perinatal and child health care in disaster settings. We found many Cochrane reviews that could contribute to the evidence-base supporting future guidelines. However there are important issues to be addressed in terms of the relevance of the available reviews and increasing the number of reviews addressing health care delivery.

Developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in hospitals in Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand: values, requirements and barriers.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines support clinical decision-making by making recommendations to guide clinical practice. These recommendations are developed by integrating the expertise of a multidisciplinary group of clinicians with the perspectives of consumers and the best available research evidence. However studies have raised concerns about the quality of guideline development, and particularly the link between research and recommendations. The reasons why guideline developers are not following the established development methods are not clear.We aimed to explore the barriers to developing evidence-based guidelines in eleven hospitals in Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand, so as to better understand how evidence-based guideline development could be facilitated in these settings. The research aimed to identify the value clinicians place on guidelines, what clinicians want in guidelines developed in hospital settings and what factors limit rigorous evidence-based guideline development in these settings. METHODS: Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were undertaken with senior and junior healthcare providers (nurses, midwives, doctors, allied health) from the maternal and neonatal services of the eleven participating hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis undertaken. RESULTS: Ninety-three individual, 25 pair and eleven group interviews were conducted. Participants were clear that they want guidelines that are based on evidence and updated regularly. They were also clear that there are major barriers to this. Most of the barriers were shared across countries, and included lack of time, lack of skills in finding, appraising and interpreting evidence, lack of access to relevant evidence and difficulty arranging meetings and achieving consensus.Barriers that were primarily identified in Australian hospitals include cumbersome organisational processes and a feeling that guidelines are being developed for bureaucratic ends. Barriers that were primarily identified in South East Asian hospitals include difficulty accessing evidence due to limited resources available for computers, internet and journal subscriptions and limited skills in computing and English. CONCLUSIONS: The clinicians in these eleven very different hospitals want evidence-based guidelines. However they are frustrated by guideline development processes that are enormously time, skill and resource intensive. They feel strongly that "there's got to be a better way".The fact that the great majority of the identified barriers were shared across settings may provide an opportunity to develop a more pragmatic way of developing guidelines that can be applied in many contexts.

Maternal and perinatal guideline development in hospitals in South East Asia: the experience of the SEA-ORCHID project.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are commonly used to support practitioners to improve practice. However many studies have raised concerns about guideline quality. The reasons why guidelines are not developed following the established development methods are not clear.The SEA-ORCHID project aims to increase the generation and use of locally relevant research and improve clinical practice in maternal and perinatal care in four countries in South East Asia. Baseline data highlighted that development of evidence-based CPGs according to recommended processes was very rare in the SEA-ORCHID hospitals. The project investigators suggested that there were aspects of the recommended development process that made it very difficult in the participating hospitals.We therefore aimed to explore the experience of guideline development and particularly the enablers of and barriers to developing evidence-based guidelines in the nine hospitals in South East Asia participating in the SEA-ORCHID project, so as to better understand how evidence-based guideline development could be facilitated in these settings. METHODS: Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were undertaken with senior and junior healthcare providers (nurses, midwives, doctors) from the maternal and neonatal services at each of the nine participating hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis undertaken. RESULTS: Seventy-five individual, 25 pair and eleven group interviews were conducted. Participants clearly valued evidence-based guidelines. However they also identified several major barriers to guideline development including time, lack of awareness of process, difficulties searching for evidence and arranging guideline development group meetings, issues with achieving multi-disciplinarity and consumer involvement. They also highlighted the central importance of keeping guidelines up-to-date. CONCLUSION: Healthcare providers in the SEA-ORCHID hospitals face a series of barriers to developing evidence-based guidelines. At present, in many hospitals, several of these barriers are insurmountable, and as a result, rigorous, evidence-based guidelines are not being developed. Given the acknowledged benefits of evidence-based guidelines, perhaps a new approach to supporting their development in these contexts is needed.