Primary care evidence in clinical guidelines: a mixed methods study of practitioners' views

Documentary analysis of national and international guidance for community clinicians referring patients with suspected chronic limb-threatening ischaemia

BACKGROUND

Delayed referral of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) from the community to vascular services may increase risk of amputation due to delayed revascularisation. Lack of appropriate guidance for clinicians in the community may contribute to this problem. This documentary analysis investigated referral guidance available to primary care clinicians.

METHODS

National and international documents providing guidance on CLTI management were identified by searching sources including Medline, Embase, Guidelines International Network and College/Society websites. Data were extracted on referral recommendations, target audience and author groups. Recommendations were coded according to the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy. Clinical practice guideline quality and ease of implementation were assessed independently by two reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and Guideline Implementability Appraisal (GLIA) tools, respectively.

RESULTS

12 documents containing guidance on CLTI referrals were included. Five were clinical practice guidelines. Nine targeted clinicians in the community among their audience, yet only one included a primary care clinician in their author group. Recommendations on identification and referral of CLTI were often in non-specific language and frequently assumed specialist knowledge of vascular disease. Just 4 of the 93 behaviour change techniques were identified in the guidance documents. Three relevant domains of the AGREE II tool were scored for five clinical practice guidelines: stakeholder involvement (range 21.4%-52.4%, mean 42.9%), clarity of presentation (range 71.4%-92.9%, mean 82.9%) and applicability (25.0%-57.1%, mean 36.8%). The GLIA tool identified barriers to ease of implementation for all five clinical practice guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Most guidance for clinicians in the community on the management of CLTI has been written without their input and assumes knowledge of vascular disease, which may be lacking. Future guidance development should involve community clinicians, consider using additional behaviour change techniques, and improve the applicability and ease of implementation of recommendations.

Supporting family carers in general practice: a scoping review of clinical guidelines and recommendations

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of family carers are providing informal care in community settings. This creates a number of challenges because family carers are at risk of poor physical and psychological health outcomes, with consequences both for themselves and those for whom they provide care. General Practitioners (GPs), who play a central role in community-based care, are ideally positioned to identify, assess, and signpost carers to supports. However, there is a significant gap in the literature in respect of appropriate guidance and resources to support them in this role.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken to examine clinical guidelines and recommendations for GPs to support them in their role with family carers. This involved a multidisciplinary team, in line with Arksey & O'Malley's framework, and entailed searches of ten peer-reviewed databases and grey literature between September-November 2020.

RESULTS

The searches yielded a total of 4,651 English language papers, 35 of which met the criteria for inclusion after removing duplicates, screening titles and abstracts, and performing full-text readings. Ten papers focused on resources/guidelines for GPs, twenty were research papers, three were review papers, one was a framework of quality markers for carer support, and one was an editorial. Data synthesis indicated that nine (90%) of the guidelines included some elements relating to the identification, assessment, and/or signposting of carers. Key strategies for identifying carers suggest that a whole practice approach is optimal, incorporating a role for the GP, practice staff, and for the use of appropriate supporting documentation. Important knowledge gaps were highlighted in respect of appropriate clinical assessment and evidence-based signposting pathways.

CONCLUSION

Our review addresses a significant gap in the literature by providing an important synthesis of current available evidence on clinical guidelines for GPs in supporting family carers, including strategies for identification, options for assessment and potential referral/signposting routes. However, there is a need for greater transparency of the existing evidence base as well as much more research to evaluate the effectiveness and increase the routine utilisation, of clinical guidelines in primary care.

A scoping review of evidence-based guidance and guidelines published by general practice professional organizations

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) need robust, up-to-date evidence to deliver high-quality patient care. There is limited literature regarding the role of international GP professional organizations in developing and publishing clinical guidelines to support GPs clinical decision making.

OBJECTIVE

To identify evidence-based guidance and clinical guidelines produced by GP professional organizations and summarize their content, structure, and methods of development and dissemination.

METHODS

Scoping review of GP professional organizations following Joanna Briggs Institute guidance. Four databases were searched and a grey literature search was conducted. Studies were included if they were: (i) evidence-based guidance documents or clinical guidelines produced de novo by a national GP professional organization, (ii) developed to support GPs clinical care, and (iii) published in the last 10 years. GP professional organizations were contacted to provide supplementary information. A narrative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

Six GP professional organizations and 60 guidelines were included. The most common de novo guideline topics were mental health, cardiovascular disease, neurology, pregnancy and women's health and preventive care. All guidelines were developed using a standard evidence-synthesis method. All included documents were disseminated through downloadable pdfs and peer review publications. GP professional organizations indicated that they generally collaborate with or endorse guidelines developed by national or international guideline producing bodies.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this scoping review provide an overview of de novo guideline development by GP professional organizations and can support collaboration between GP organizations worldwide thus reducing duplication of effort, facilitating reproducibility, and identifying areas of standardization.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JXQ26.

A scoping review protocol of evidence-based guidance and guidelines published by general practitioner professional organisations

Introduction: General practitioners (GPs) strive to use a patient centered approach to achieve shared decision making by integrating clinical evidence, clinical judgement, and patient priorities. In order to achieve this standard of care, GPs require relevant, up to date and high quality evidence. Currently there is a gap in the literature regarding the role of GP professional organisations internationally in producing and publishing evidence based guidance and clinical guidelines for GPs. This protocol outlines a scoping review to identify what evidence-based guidance is produced by general practitioner professional organisations internationally in terms of topic content, the structure and methods used to develop guidance and ways of disseminating this guidance, to support general practice clinical decision making. Methods: This scoping review will be conducted using the framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), will be used to guide the reporting. Two researchers will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus), grey literature sources and contact international GP professional organisations directly to identify appropriate studies for inclusion. Key information will be categorised and classified to generate a summary of the methods used internationally to develop and implement evidence-based guides for general practitioners and a narrative synthesis will be conducted. Conclusions: This scoping review will examine current practice internationally regarding the role of General Practice professional organisations in producing and publishing clinical guidelines and evidence based guidance to support general practitioner's clinical decision making to benefit patient care.

A scoping review protocol of evidence-based guidance and guidelines published by general practitioner professional organisations

Introduction: General practitioners (GPs) strive to use a patient centered approach to achieve shared decision making by integrating clinical evidence, clinical judgement, and patient priorities. In order to achieve this standard of care, GPs require relevant, up to date and high quality evidence. Currently there is a gap in the literature regarding the role of GP professional organisations internationally in producing and publishing evidence based guidance and clinical guidelines for GPs. This protocol outlines a scoping review to identify what evidence-based guidance is produced by general practitioner professional organisations internationally in terms of topic content, the structure and methods used to develop guidance and ways of disseminating this guidance, to support general practice clinical decision making.

Methods: This scoping review will be conducted using the framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), will be used to guide the reporting. Two researchers will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus), grey literature sources and contact international GP professional organisations directly to identify appropriate studies for inclusion. Key information will be categorised and classified to generate a summary of the methods used internationally to develop and implement evidence-based guides for general practitioners and a narrative synthesis will be conducted.

Conclusions: This scoping review will examine current practice internationally regarding the role of General Practice professional organisations in producing and publishing clinical guidelines and evidence based guidance to support general practitioner’s clinical decision making to benefit patient care.

Reorganisation of GP surgeries during the COVID-19 outbreak: analysis of guidelines from 15 countries

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) play a key role in managing the COVID-19 outbreak. However, they may encounter difficulties adapting their practices to the pandemic. We provide here an analysis of guidelines for the reorganisation of GP surgeries during the beginning of the pandemic from 15 countries.

METHODS

A network of GPs collaborated together in a three-step process: (i) identification of key recommendations of GP surgery reorganisation, according to WHO, CDC and health professional resources from health care facilities; (ii) collection of key recommendations included in the guidelines published in 15 countries; (iii) analysis, comparison and synthesis of the results.

RESULTS

Recommendations for the reorganisation of GP surgeries of four types were identified: (i) reorganisation of GP consultations (cancelation of non-urgent consultations, follow-up via e-consultations), (ii) reorganisation of GP surgeries (area partitioning, visual alerts and signs, strict hygiene measures), (iii) reorganisation of medical examinations by GPs (equipment, hygiene, partial clinical examinations, patient education), (iv) reorganisation of GP staff (equipment, management, meetings, collaboration with the local community).

CONCLUSIONS

We provide here an analysis of guidelines for the reorganisation of GP surgeries during the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak from 15 countries. These guidelines focus principally on clinical care, with less attention paid to staff management, and the area of epidemiological surveillance and research is largely neglected. The differences of guidelines between countries and the difficulty to apply them in routine care, highlight the need of advanced research in primary care. Thereby, primary care would be able to provide recommendations adapted to the real-world settings and with stronger evidence, which is especially necessary during pandemics.

GPs' use of gut feelings when assessing cancer risk: a qualitative study in UK primary care

BACKGROUND

The use of gut feelings to guide clinical decision making in primary care has been frequently described but is not considered a legitimate reason for cancer referral.

AIM

To explore the role that gut feeling plays in clinical decision making in primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative interview study with 19 GPs in Oxfordshire, UK.

METHOD

GPs who had referred patients to a cancer pathway based on a gut feeling as a referral criterion were invited to participate. Interviews were conducted between November 2019 and January 2020, and transcripts were analysed using the one sheet of paper method.

RESULTS

Gut feeling was seen as an essential part of decision making that facilitated appropriate and timely care. GPs distanced their gut feelings from descriptions that could be seen as unscientific, describing successful use as reliant on experience and clinical knowledge. This was especially true for patients who fell within a 'grey area' where clinical guidelines did not match the GP's assessment of cancer risk, either because the guidance inadequately represented or did not include the patient's presentation. GPs sought to legitimise their gut feelings by gathering objective clinical evidence, careful examination of referral procedures, and consultation with colleagues.

CONCLUSION

GPs described their gut feelings as important to decision making in primary care and a necessary addition to clinical guidance. The steps taken to legitimise their gut feelings matched that expected in good clinical practice.

Understanding factors influencing venous leg ulcer guideline implementation in Australian primary care

The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of the venous leg ulcer (VLU) management in primary health care settings located in Melbourne metropolitan and rural Victoria, Australia. We explored health professionals' perspective on the use of the Australian and New Zealand Venous Leg Ulcer Clinical Practice Guideline (VLU CPG) to identify the main challenges of VLU CPG uptake in clinical practice. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 general practitioners (GPs) and 20 practice nurses (PNs), including two Aboriginal health nurses. The Theoretical Domains Framework guided data collection and analysis. Data were analysed using a theory-driven analysis. We found a lack of awareness of the VLU CPGs, which resulted in suboptimal knowledge and limited adherence to evidence-based recommendations. Environmental factors, such as busy nature of clinical environment and absence of handheld Doppler ultrasound, as well as social and professional identity factors, such as reliance on previous experience and colleague's advice, influenced the uptake of the VLU CPGs in primary care. Findings of this study will inform development of interventions to increase the uptake of the VLU CPG in primary care settings and to reduce the evidence-practice gap in VLU management by health professionals.

Pharmaceutical companies information and antibiotic prescription patterns: A follow-up study in Spanish primary care

Objectives

To assess the impact of sources of drug information on antibiotic prescribing patterns (quantity and quality) among primary care physicians.

Methods

We conducted a cohort study on primary care physicians who were actively engaged in medical practice in 2010 in a region in north-west Spain (Galicia), fulfilling inclusion criteria (n = 2100). As the independent variable, we took the perceived utility of 6 sources of information on antibiotics, as measured by the validated KAAR-11 questionnaire. As dependent variables, we used: (1) a quality indicator (appropriate quality, defined as any case where 6 of the 12 indicators proposed by the European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption Network [ESAC-Net] were better than the mean values for Spain); and, (2) a quantity indicator (high prescribing), defined as any case where defined daily doses (DDD) per 1 000 inhabitants per day of antibacterials for systemic use were higher than the mean values for Spain. The adjusted odds ratio for a change in the interquartile range (IqOR) for each sources of information on antibiotics was calculated using Generalized Linear Mixed Models.

Results

The questionnaire response rate was 68%. Greater perceived utility of pharmaceutical sales representatives increases the risk of having high prescribing (1/IqOR = 2.50 [95%CI: 1.63–3.66]) and reduces the probability of having appropriate quality (1/IqOR = 2.28 [95%CI: 1.77–3.01]). Greater perceived utility of clinical guidelines increases the probability of having appropriate quality (1/IqOR = 1.25 [95%CI: 1.02–1.54]) and reduces the probability of high prescribing (1/IqOR = 1.25 [95%CI: 1.02–1.54]).

Conclusions

Sources of information on antibiotics are an important determinant of the quantity and quality of antibiotic prescribing in primary care. Commercial sources of information influence prescribing negatively, and clinical guidelines are associated with better indicators.

Osteoporosis prevention: Where are the barriers to improvement in French general practitioners? A qualitative study

Background

Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis and treatment remain suboptimal.

Objectives

We conducted a qualitative study to understand barriers towards care initiation and levers to improve awareness and management of osteoporosis among general practitioners (GPs).

Methods

Semi-structured face-to face interviews were conducted with 16 GPs in the Rhône area of France to explore their knowledge and representations regarding osteoporosis. A thematic analysis of transcripts was performed to identify GPs’ perceptions on osteoporosis diagnosis, prevention, treatment and patients’ expectations.

Results

Interviewed GPs considered osteoporosis far less important than other chronic diseases. They questioned whether osteoporosis was a disease or normal aspect of ageing. They associated osteoporosis with fragility fractures, female sex, menopause, and old age but rarely with male sex. They regarded bone mineral density as the reference diagnostic test, but certain GPs indicated that they had difficulties to interpret the results and to know when to prescribe. Biphosphonates were mentioned as the reference treatment but some GPs expressed distrust about osteoporosis medications. Most of them did not think to screen for osteoporosis risk factors in their patients in a preventive medical approach. They mentioned the lack of time to implement prevention and were expecting clear and pragmatic guidelines, as well as information campaigns in general population to increase awareness on osteoporosis.

Conclusion

GPs tended to underestimate the salience of osteoporosis. Clear recommendations, better awareness of GPs and the general population could improve osteoporosis prevention and treatment.

General practitioners' awareness of the recommendations for faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for suspected lower gastrointestinal cancers: a national survey

OBJECTIVES

In July 2017, UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published a diagnostic guidance (DG30) recommending the use of faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for symptomatic patients who do not meet the urgent referral pathway for suspected colorectal cancer (CRC). We assessed general practitioners' (GP) awareness of DG30 in primary care 6 months after its publication.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional online survey of GPs hosted by an English panel of Primary health care professionals.

PARTICIPANTS

In December 2017, 1024 GPs registered on an online panel (M3) based in England took part in an online survey.

OUTCOMES AND VARIABLES

We investigated a number of factors including previous experience of using FIT and guaiac faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs), the number of urgent referrals for CRC that GPs have made in the last year and their sociodemographic and professional characteristics that could be associated with their self-reported awareness of the FIT diagnostic guidance.

RESULTS

Of the 1024 GPs who completed the survey, 432 (42.2%) were aware of the current recommendation but only 102 (10%) had used it to guide their referrals. Awareness was lowest in North West England compared with London (30.5% vs 44.9%; adjusted OR: 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92). Awareness of the FIT guidance was positively associated with test usage after the NICE update (adjusted OR: 13.00, 95% CI 6.87 to 24.61) and having specialist training (adjusted OR: 1.48, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.08). The number of urgent referrals, the previous use of FOBt, GPs' age and gender, work experience and practice size (both in terms of the number of GPs or patients at the practice) were not associated with awareness.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than half of GPs in this survey recognised the current guidance on the use of FIT. Self-reported awareness was not systematically related to demographic of professional characteristics.

Relevance to family practice of English-language guidelines on breast, colorectal and prostate cancer: a review

BACKGROUND

GPs regard cancer guidelines as useful yet criticise their limited applicability to the primary care setting.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the extent to which English-language breast, colorectal and prostate cancer guidelines contain recommendations that are relevant to GPs and to find out which of the GPs' roles in cancer care the recommendations refer to.

METHODS

Evidence- and consent-based English-language breast, colorectal and prostate cancer guidelines were searched for in guideline databases and selected guideline providers' web pages, and checked against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Relevant recommendations were identified, extracted and examined. The involvement of GPs in guideline development as well as whether they were named as a target group was further investigated.

RESULTS

Of the 65 identified guidelines, 35 were eligible and contained recommendations applicable to GPs. GPs were directly involved in the development of the majority of only breast cancer guidelines and were explicitly named as a target group in fewer than 50% of guidelines. The majority of recommendations dealt with patient-physician communication, with a focus on cancer therapy. Rarer procedural recommendations predominantly concentrated on follow-up/survivorship care. Less than one-third of all relevant recommendations concerned diagnosis. Only breast cancer guidelines provided a high number of recommendations on transitions between primary and secondary care.

CONCLUSION

Greater consideration of GPs would increase their acceptance of guidelines, promote delivery of high-quality cancer care and clarify responsibilities between cancer care providers. The GP's role in cancer diagnosis is not appropriately reflected in cancer guideline recommendations.