Marjolein Lugtenberg

Why don't physicians adhere to guideline recommendations in practice? An analysis of barriers among Dutch general practitioners.

BackgroundDespite wide distribution and promotion of clinical practice guidelines, adherence among Dutch general practitioners (GPs) is not optimal. To improve adherence to guidelines, an analysis of barriers to implementation is advocated. Because different recommendations within a guideline can have different barriers, in this study we focus on key recommendations rather than guidelines as a whole, and explore the barriers to implementation perceived by Dutch GPs.MethodsA qualitative study using six focus groups was conducted, in which 30 GPs participated, with an average of seven per session. Fifty-six key recommendations were derived from twelve national guidelines. In each focus group, barriers to the implementation of the key recommendations of two clinical practice guidelines were discussed. Focus group discussions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data was analysed by using an existing framework of barriers.ResultsThe barriers varied largely within guidelines, with each key recommendation having a unique pattern of barriers. The most perceived barriers were lack of agreement with the recommendations due to lack of applicability or lack of evidence (68% of key recommendations), environmental factors such as organisational constraints (52%), lack of knowledge regarding the guideline recommendations (46%), and guideline factors such as unclear or ambiguous guideline recommendations (43%).ConclusionOur study findings suggest a broad range of barriers. As the barriers largely differ within guidelines, tailored and barrier-driven implementation strategies focusing on key recommendations are needed to improve adherence in practice. In addition, guidelines should be more transparent concerning the underlying evidence and applicability, and further efforts are needed to address complex issues such as comorbidity in guidelines. Finally, it might be useful to include focus groups in continuing medical education as an innovative medium for guideline education and implementation.

Effects of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on quality of care: a systematic review

Background: Evidence-based clinical guidelines aim to improve the quality of care. In The Netherlands, considerable time and effort have been invested in the development and implementation of evidence-based guidelines since the 1990s. Thus far, no reviews are available on their effectiveness. The primary aim of this article was to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of Dutch evidence-based clinical guidelines in improving the quality of care. Methods: A systematic review of studies evaluating the effects of Dutch evidence-based guidelines on both the process and structure of care and patient outcomes was conducted. The electronic databases Medline and Embase (1990–2007) and relevant scientific journals were searched. Studies were only selected if they included a controlled trial, an interrupted time series design or a before and after design. Results: A total of 20 studies were included. In 17 of 19 studies that measured the effects on the process or structure of care, significant improvements were reported. Thirteen of these studies reported improvement with respect to some of the recommendations studied. In addition, the size of the observed effects varied largely across the recommendations within guidelines. Six of nine studies that measured patient health outcomes showed significant but small improvements as a result of the use of clinical guidelines. Conclusions: This review demonstrates that Dutch evidence-based clinical guidelines can be effective in improving the process and structure of care. The effects of guidelines on patient health outcomes were studied far less and data are less convincing. The high level of variation in effects across recommendations suggests that implementation strategies tailored to individual recommendations within the guideline are needed to establish relevant improvements in healthcare. Moreover, the results highlight the need for well-designed studies focusing on the level of the recommendations to determine which factors influence guideline utilisation and improved patient outcomes.

Current Guidelines Have Limited Applicability to Patients with Comorbid Conditions: A Systematic Analysis of Evidence-Based Guidelines

Background Guidelines traditionally focus on the diagnosis and treatment of single diseases. As almost half of the patients with a chronic disease have more than one disease, the applicability of guidelines may be limited. The aim of this study was to assess the extent that guidelines address comorbidity and to assess the supporting evidence of recommendations related to comorbidity. Methodology/Principal Findings We conducted a systematic analysis of evidence-based guidelines focusing on four highly prevalent chronic conditions with a high impact on quality of life: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depressive disorder, diabetes mellitus type 2, and osteoarthritis. Data were abstracted from each guideline on the extent that comorbidity was addressed (general comments, specific recommendations), the type of comorbidity discussed (concordant, discordant), and the supporting evidence of the comorbidity-related recommendations (level of evidence, translation of evidence). Of the 20 guidelines, 17 (85%) addressed the issue of comorbidity and 14 (70%) provided specific recommendations on comorbidity. In general, the guidelines included few recommendations on patients with comorbidity (mean 3 recommendations per guideline, range 0 to 26). Of the 59 comorbidity-related recommendations provided, 46 (78%) addressed concordant comorbidities, 8 (14%) discordant comorbidities, and for 5 (8%) the type of comorbidity was not specified. The strength of the supporting evidence was moderate for 25% (15/59) and low for 37% (22/59) of the recommendations. In addition, for 73% (43/59) of the recommendations the evidence was not adequately translated into the guidelines. Conclusions/Significance Our study showed that the applicability of current evidence-based guidelines to patients with comorbid conditions is limited. Most guidelines do not provide explicit guidance on treatment of patients with comorbidity, particularly for discordant combinations. Guidelines should be more explicit about the applicability of their recommendations to patients with comorbidity. Future clinical trials should also include patients with the most prevalent combinations of chronic conditions.

Perceived barriers to guideline adherence: A survey among general practitioners

BackgroundDespite considerable efforts to promote and support guideline use, adherence is often suboptimal. Barriers to adherence vary not only across guidelines but also across recommendations within guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess the perceived barriers to guideline adherence among GPs by focusing on key recommendations within guidelines.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey among 703 GPs in the Netherlands. Sixteen key recommendations were derived from four national guidelines. Six statements were included to address the attitudes towards guidelines in general. In addition, GPs were asked to rate their perceived adherence (one statement) and the perceived barriers (fourteen statements) for each of the key recommendations, based on an existing framework.Results264 GPs (38%) completed the questionnaire. Although 35% of the GPs reported difficulties in changing routines and habits to follow guidelines, 89% believed that following guidelines leads to improved patient care. Perceived adherence varied between 52 and 95% across recommendations (mean: 77%). The most perceived barriers were related to external factors, in particular patient ability and behaviour (mean: 30%) and patient preferences (mean: 23%). Lack of applicability of recommendations in general (mean: 22%) and more specifically to individual patients (mean: 25%) were also frequently perceived as barriers. The scores on perceived barriers differed largely between recommendations [minimum range 14%; maximum range 67%].ConclusionsDutch GPs have a positive attitude towards the NHG guidelines, report high adherence rates and low levels of perceived barriers. However, the perceived adherence and perceived barriers varied largely across recommendations. The most perceived barriers across recommendations are patient related, suggesting that current guidelines do not always adequately incorporate patient preferences, needs and abilities. It may be useful to provide tools such as decision aids, supporting the flexible use of guidelines to individual patients in practice.

Guidelines on uncomplicated urinary tract infections are difficult to follow: perceived barriers and suggested interventions

BackgroundUrinary tract infections (UTI) are among the most common health problems seen in general practice. Evidence-based guidelines on UTI are available, but adherence to these guidelines varies widely among practitioners for reasons not well understood. The aim of this study was to identify the barriers to the implementation of a guideline on UTI perceived by Dutch general practitioners (GPs) and to explore interventions to overcome these barriers.MethodsA focus group study, including 13 GPs working in general practices in the Netherlands, was conducted. Key recommendations on diagnosis and treatment of uncomplicated UTI were selected from the guideline. Barriers to guideline adherence and possible interventions to address these barriers were discussed. The focus group session was audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Barriers were classified according to an existing framework.ResultsLack of agreement with the recommendations, unavailable and inconvenient materials (i.e. dipslides), and organisational constraints were perceived as barriers for the diagnostic recommendations. Barriers to implementing the treatment recommendations were lack of applicability and organisational constraints related to the availability of drugs in pharmacies. Suggested interventions were to provide small group education to GPs and practice staff members, to improve organisation and coordination of care in out of hour services, to improve the availability of preferred dosages of drugs, and to pilot-test guidelines regionally.ConclusionsDespite sufficient knowledge of the recommendations on UTI, attitudinal and external barriers made it difficult to follow them in practice. The care concerning UTI could be optimized if these barriers are adequately addressed in implementation strategies. The feasibility and success of these strategies could be improved by involving the target group of the guideline in selecting useful interventions to address the barriers to implementation.

Knowledge, attitudes and use of the guidelines for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis among Dutch dermatologists

Background  In 2003, the Dutch psoriasis guidelines were among the first evidence‐based medicine guidelines in dermatology. Although pivotal, the implementation of dermatological guidelines has not been assessed.

Implementation of multiple-domain covering computerized decision support systems in primary care: a focus group study on perceived barriers

BackgroundDespite the widespread availability of computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) in various healthcare settings, evidence on their uptake and effectiveness is still limited. Most barrier studies focus on CDSSs that are aimed at a limited number of decision points within selected small-scale academic settings. The aim of this study was to identify the perceived barriers to using large-scale implemented CDSSs covering multiple disease areas in primary care.MethodsThree focus group sessions were conducted in which 24 primary care practitioners (PCPs) participated (general practitioners, general practitioners in training and practice nurses), varying from 7 to 9 per session. In each focus group, barriers to using CDSSs were discussed using a semi-structured literature-based topic list. Focus group discussions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers independently performed thematic content analysis using the software program Atlas.ti 7.0.ResultsThree groups of barriers emerged, related to 1) the users’ knowledge of the system, 2) the users’ evaluation of features of the system (source and content, format/lay out, and functionality), and 3) the interaction of the system with external factors (patient-related and environmental factors). Commonly perceived barriers were insufficient knowledge of the CDSS, irrelevant alerts, too high intensity of alerts, a lack of flexibility and learning capacity of the CDSS, a negative effect on patient communication, and the additional time and work it requires to use the CDSS.ConclusionsMultiple types of barriers may hinder the use of large-scale implemented CDSSs covering multiple disease areas in primary care. Lack of knowledge of the system is an important barrier, emphasizing the importance of a proper introduction of the system to the target group. Furthermore, barriers related to a lack of integration into daily practice seem to be of primary concern, suggesting that increasing the system’s flexibility and learning capacity in order to be able to adapt the decision support to meet the varying needs of different users should be the main target of CDSS interventions.

Risk factors and protective factors associated with incident or increase of frailty among community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review of longitudinal studies

Introduction Frailty is one of the greatest challenges facing our aging population, as it can lead to adverse outcomes such as institutionalization, hospitalization, and mortality. However, the factors that are associated with frailty are poorly understood. We performed a systematic review of longitudinal studies in order to identify the sociodemographic, physical, biological, lifestyle-related, and psychological risk or protective factors that are associated with frailty among community-dwelling older adults. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in the following databases in order to identify studies that assessed the factors associated with of frailty among community-dwelling older adults: Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane, PsychINFO Ovid, CINAHL EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar. Studies were selected if they included a longitudinal design, focused on community-dwelling older adults aged 60 years and older, and used a tool to assess frailty. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using the Quality of Reporting of Observational Longitudinal Research checklist. Results Twenty-three studies were included. Significant associations were reported between the following types of factors and frailty: sociodemographic factors (7/7 studies), physical factors (5/6 studies), biological factors (5/7 studies), lifestyle factors (11/13 studies), and psychological factors (7/8 studies). Significant sociodemographic factors included older age, ethnic background, neighborhood, and access to private insurance or Medicare; significant physical factors included obesity and activities of daily living (ADL) functional status; significant biological factors included serum uric acid; significant lifestyle factors included a higher Diet Quality Index International (DQI) score, higher fruit/vegetable consumption and higher tertile of all measures of habitual dietary resveratrol exposure; significant psychological factors included depressive symptoms. Conclusions A broad range of sociodemographic, physical, biological, lifestyle, and psychological factors show a longitudinal association with frailty. These factors should be considered when developing interventions aimed at preventing and/or reducing the burden associated with frailty among community-dwelling older adults.

Welke barrières ervaren bedrijfsartsen bij het gebruik van de richtlijn Psychische problemen

SamenvattingEerdere onderzoeken toonden aan dat de NVAB-richtlijn Psychische problemen in de praktijk zeer weinig gebruikt wordt. Dit artikel geeft een overzicht van de barrières die bedrijfsartsen ervaren bij het gebruik van deze richtlijn.31 bedrijfsartsen bespraken in zes groepen de inhoud en aanbevelingen, in acht bijeenkomsten. De geluidsopnames werden letterlijk uitgeschreven en met software voor kwalitatief onderzoek geanalyseerd.Gebrek aan kennis van de richtlijn bleek een cruciale barrière te zijn voor gebruik in de praktijk. Ook wisten bedrijfsartsen vaak niet hóé ze de richtlijnaanbevelingen konden opvolgen. Daarnaast waren er praktische barrières en vond men het lastig om oude gewoonten te veranderen. Ze voelden zich in meerdere opzichten niet in staat gesteld om de richtlijn te volgen.De voornaamste barrières die bedrijfsartsen ervaren kunnen worden verholpen door meer scholing in kennis en vaardigheden, door het verbeteren van IT-systemen en door bedrijfsartsen meer tijd en ruimte te bieden om volgens de richtlijn te werken.