Guidelines Committee (guideline + committee)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Selected Abstracts

Guidelines for the Management of Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Organ Transplant Recipients

Thomas Stasko MD
Background. Solid-organ transplant recipients have a high incidence of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and often develop multiple and aggressive tumors. There are few published studies or reviews, which provide guidance to the clinician in the treatment of these patients. Objective. The objective was to develop useful clinical guidelines for the treatment of skin cancer in organ transplant recipients (OTRs). Methods. The members of the Guidelines Committee of the International Transplant,Skin Cancer Collaborative (ITSCC) carried out a computerized search utilizing the databases of the National Library of Medicine for reports in the literature on SCC in OTRs. These reports were collectively examined by the group and combined with experiences from the members' clinical practices in the development of the guidelines. Results. More than 300 articles relating to SCC in OTRs were reviewed. In general, reports concerning the prevention and treatment of SCC in OTRs are of individual cases or small case series. They are retrospective in nature, statistically nonrigorous, and lack the complete epidemiologic data necessary to derive definitive conclusions. Combining these studies and collective clinical experience, however, is at present the best available method for devising guidelines for the treatment of SCC in OTRs. Conclusion. Guidelines developed for the treatment of skin cancer in OTRs, supported by the best available data and collective clinical experience, may assist in the management of OTRs with SCC. The development of clinical pathways and complete documentation with rigorous prospective study is necessary to improve and refine future guideline development. [source]

Evidence-based medicine and practice guidelines: Application to genetics,

Helga V. Toriello
Abstract The Professional Practice and Guidelines Committee of the American College of Medical Genetics has the responsibility of overseeing the development of guidelines for the practice of clinical genetics. In the past, most, if not all, guidelines were primarily based on expert opinion. However, recently the goal has become to develop guidelines that are more evidence-based, or at least, to recognize the level of evidence available to the authors of these documents. This article reviews the challenges that are faced by geneticists who are charged with the development of practice guidelines. 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]

Guidelines for patient selection and performance of carotid artery stenting

The Carotid Stenting Guidelines Committee
Abstract Background:, The endovascular treatment of carotid atherosclerosis with carotid artery stenting (CAS) remains controversial. Carotid endarterectomy remains the benchmark in terms of procedural mortality and morbidity. At present, there are no consensus Australasian guidelines for the safe performance of CAS. Methods:, We applied a modified Delphi consensus method of iterative consultation between the College representatives on the Carotid Stenting Guidelines Committee (CSGC). Results:, Selection of patients suitable for CAS needs careful consideration of clinical and patho-anatomical criteria and cannot be directly extrapolated from clinical indicators for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Randomized controlled trials (including pooled analyses of results) comparing CAS with CEA for treatment of symptomatic stenosis have demonstrated that CAS is more hazardous than CEA. On current evidence, the CGSC therefore recommends that CAS should not be performed in the majority of patients requiring carotid revascularisation. The evidence for CAS in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis who are considered medically high risk is weak, and there is currently no evidence to support CAS as a treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The use of distal protection devices during CAS remains controversial with increased risk of clinically silent stroke. The knowledge requirements for the safe performance of CAS include an understanding of the evidence base from randomized controlled trials, carotid and aortic arch anatomy and pathology, clinical stroke syndromes, the differing treatment options for stroke and carotid atherosclerosis, and recognition and management of periprocedural complications. It is critical that all patients being considered for a carotid intervention have adequate pre-procedural neuro-imaging and an independent, standardized neurological assessment before and after the procedure. Maintenance of proficiency in CAS requires active involvement in surgical/endovascular audit and continuing medical education programs. These standards should apply in the public and private health care settings. Conclusion:, These guidelines represent the consensus of an inter-collegiate committee in order to direct appropriate patient selection and the range of cognitive and technical requirements to perform CAS. Advances in endovascular technologies and the results of randomized controlled trials will guide future revisions of these guidelines. [source]

Paediatric emergency guidelines: Could one size fit all?

Sarah Dalton
Abstract Objectives: The development of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) is a core task in EDs and CPGs are widely used. The process of CPGs development in Australian and New Zealand ED is unknown. We aim to describe this process in paediatric EDs and examine the feasibility of developing collaborative guidelines. Methods: A piloted questionnaire regarding CPG development, dissemination, implementation and evaluation was circulated to all 13 Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) sites. Specific questions regarding feasibility of combined guidelines were included. Results: All PREDICT EDs participated in the survey. All used CPGs in EDs and 12/13 had ED-specific guidelines. EDs had an average of 77 guidelines with approximately 5 new guidelines generated annually. Staff at most sites (10/13) also accessed guidelines from external sources. Most hospitals (10/13) had a guideline committee, generally comprising of senior ED and general paediatric staff. Guidelines were usually written by committee members and 10/13 hospitals adopted modified external guidelines. An average committee met six times a year for 90 min and involved seven clinicians. Most sites did not have a project manager or dedicated secretarial support. Few hospitals included literature references (3/13) or levels of evidence (1/13) in their guidelines. Most did not consider implementation, evaluation or teaching packages. Most sites (10/13) supported the development of collaborative guidelines. Conclusions: Paediatric EDs expend significant resources to develop CPGs. Collaborative guidelines would likely decrease duplication of effort and increase the number of available, current and evidence-based CPGs. [source]

ASH Position Paper: Adherence and Persistence With Taking Medication to Control High Blood Pressure

Martha N. Hill RN
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2010;12:757-764. 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nonadherence and poor or no persistence in taking antihypertensive medications results in uncontrolled high blood pressure, poor clinical outcomes, and preventable health care costs. Factors associated with nonadherence are multilevel and relate not only to the patient, but also to the provider, health care system, health care organization, and community. National guideline committees have called for more aggressive approaches to implement strategies known to improve adherence and technologies known to enable changes at the systems level, including improved communication among providers and patients. Improvements in adherence and persistence are likely to be achieved by supporting patient self-management, a team approach to patient care, technology-supported office practice systems, better methods to measure adherence, and less clinical inertia. Integrating high blood pressure control into health care policies that emphasize and improve prevention and management of chronic illness remains a challenge. Four strategies are proposed: focusing on clinical outcomes; empowering informed, activated patients; developing prepared proactive practice teams; and advocating for health care policy reform. With hypertension remaining the most common reason for office visits, the time is now. [source]