Siebenhofer Andrea, Horvath Karl, Semlitsch Thomas, Plath Jasper, Jeitler Klaus
Institut für Allgemeinmedizin, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.
EBM Review Center, Medizinische Universität Graz, Österreich; Universitätsklinik für Innere Medizin, Klinische Abteilung für Endokrinologie und Stoffwechsel, Medizinische Universität Graz, Österreich.
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2014;108(5-6):283-92. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2014.04.017. Epub 2014 Jun 12.
As part of the "Cancer Care in the Family Practice" project sponsored by the German Cancer Aid association, this overview for the first time assesses to what extent general practitioners (GPs) are considered in the formulation of German cancer guidelines.
Guidelines relating to cancer care for adult patients were sought in eight national guideline and specialist association portals. Identified guidelines were initially examined to discover whether they referred to health care programmes, which were specifically developed for general practice, whether GPs were involved in their development, and whether GPs were regarded, either directly or at least indirectly, as a target group. Subsequently, all recommendations that were relevant to GPs were assigned to various main categories (communication, treatment measures) as well as subcategories and quantitatively assessed.
Of a total of 559 hits, 29 relevant guidelines were identified, of which 21 clearly referred to cancer care programmes in general practice. Eight guidelines reported that GPs were involved in the development of the guideline, and in four GPs were directly addressed as a target group. The majority of relevant recommendations were assigned to the category 'communication' but often included recommendations for the implementation of measures that were not directly applicable to family doctors (such as diagnosis and therapy). Relevant recommendations were found mostly in S3 guidelines.
Not a single cancer guideline mentioned family practice health care programmes, and less than half of them involved family doctors in their development process. Most recommendations from cancer guidelines could not be directly implemented by GPs. The guideline's development stage and subject matter (tumour-specific or across all tumour entities) appeared to influence its potential relevance to GPs.
作为德国癌症援助协会发起的“家庭医疗中的癌症护理”项目的一部分,本综述首次评估了在制定德国癌症指南时,全科医生(GPs)在多大程度上得到了考虑。
在八个国家指南和专业协会门户网站上查找与成年患者癌症护理相关的指南。对识别出的指南进行初步审查,以确定它们是否提及专门为全科医疗制定的医疗保健计划,全科医生是否参与了其制定过程,以及全科医生是否被直接或至少间接视为目标群体。随后,将所有与全科医生相关的建议分配到各个主要类别(沟通、治疗措施)以及子类别中,并进行定量评估。
在总共559次搜索命中中,识别出29项相关指南,其中21项明确提及了全科医疗中的癌症护理计划。八项指南报告称全科医生参与了指南的制定,四项指南直接将全科医生作为目标群体。大多数相关建议被分配到“沟通”类别,但通常包括一些对家庭医生不直接适用的措施实施建议(如诊断和治疗)。相关建议大多出现在S3指南中。
没有一项癌症指南提及家庭医疗保健计划,不到一半的指南在制定过程中让家庭医生参与。癌症指南中的大多数建议全科医生无法直接实施。指南的制定阶段和主题(特定肿瘤或所有肿瘤实体)似乎会影响其与全科医生的潜在相关性。