Shaughnessy Allen F, Cosgrove Lisa, Lexchin Joel R
From the Department of Family Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Tufts University Family Medicine Residency at Cambridge Health Alliance, Boston, MA (AFS); the Department of Counseling and School Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Boston (LC); and the School of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, Canada (JRL).
J Am Board Fam Med. 2016 Nov 12;29(6):644-648. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2016.06.160115.
Clinical practice guidelines abound. The recommendations contained in these guidelines are used not only to make decisions about the care of individual patients but also as practice standards to rate physician "quality." Physicians' confidence in guidelines is based on the supposition that there is a rigorous, objective process for developing recommendations based on the best available evidence. Though voluntary standards for the development of guidelines exist, the process of guideline development is unregulated and the quality of many guidelines is low. In addition, the few tools available to assess the quality of guidelines are time consuming and designed for researchers, not clinicians. Few guidelines are evaluated, either before or after their dissemination, for their impact on patient outcomes. Just as with pharmaceuticals and other products that can affect patients for better or worse, perhaps it is time to develop more standardized ways to evaluate the development and dissemination of clinical practice guidelines to ensure a similar balance between risk and benefit.
临床实践指南比比皆是。这些指南中的建议不仅用于对个体患者的护理做出决策,还作为评定医生“质量”的实践标准。医生对指南的信心基于这样一种假设,即存在一个基于现有最佳证据制定建议的严格、客观的过程。尽管存在指南制定的自愿标准,但指南制定过程不受监管,许多指南的质量较低。此外,现有的用于评估指南质量的工具很少,而且耗时费力,是为研究人员而非临床医生设计的。很少有指南在传播之前或之后对其对患者预后的影响进行评估。就像药品和其他可能对患者产生或好或坏影响的产品一样,也许是时候开发更标准化的方法来评估临床实践指南的制定和传播,以确保风险和益处之间达到类似的平衡了。