Search tips
Search criteria

Results 1-3 (3)

Clipboard (0)

Select a Filter Below

more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Effect of clinical guidelines in nursing, midwifery, and the therapies: a systematic review of evaluations 
Quality in Health Care : QHC  1998;7(4):183-191.
BACKGROUND: Although nursing, midwifery, and professions allied to medicine are increasingly using clinical guidelines to reduce inappropriate variations in practice and ensure higher quality care, there have been no rigorous overviews of their effectiveness, 18 evaluations of guidelines were identified that meet Cochrane criteria for scientific rigor. METHODS: Guideline evaluations conducted since 1975 which used a randomised controlled trial, controlled before and after, or interrupted time series design were identified through a combination of database and hand searching. RESULTS: 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Three studies evaluated guideline dissemination or implementation strategies, nine compared use of a guideline with a no guideline state; six studies examined skill substitution: performance of nurses operating according to a guideline were compared with standard care, generally provided by a physician. Significant changes in the process of care were found in six out of eight studies measuring process and in which guidelines were expected to have a positive impact on performance. In seven of the nine studies measuring outcomes of care, significant differences in favour of the intervention group were found. Skill substitution studies generally supported the hypothesis of no difference between protocol driven by nurses and care by a physician. Only one study included a formal economic evaluation, with equivocal findings. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from the review provide some evidence that care driven by a guideline can be effective in changing the process and outcome of care. However, many studies fell short of the criteria of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) for methodological quality.
PMCID: PMC2483618  PMID: 10339020
2.  Influences on prescribing in non-fundholding general practices. 
BACKGROUND: The experience from general practice fundholding suggests that financial incentives may influence prescribing; guidelines and hospital prescribing are two other suggested influences. AIM: A study was undertaken to establish general practitioners' attitudes to a financial prescribing incentive scheme, the presence and use of guidelines, and the influence of prescribing initiated within secondary care. METHOD: A postal questionnaire survey of non-fundholding general practices in the former Northern Region was conducted. RESULTS: Practices' thinking and subsequent decisions about the incentive prescribing scheme were most often influenced by discussions within the practice (45%). Those practices that achieved their savings under the incentive scheme were less likely than those not achieving savings to feel that the target was not achievable, the time scale was unacceptable, and that the philosophy behind the scheme was unacceptable. Forty-five per cent of practices received advice from neither a medical nor a pharmaceutical adviser; 27% of practices received advice from both, 12% from a medical adviser only and 16% from a pharmaceutical adviser only. Of the practices that tried to make their target savings, 91% intended to increase generic prescribing; fewer than one-third of practices mentioned any other measure. Prescribing guidelines were reported by a minority of practices, although reported rates of use were high when these were present. Clinical guidelines for three conditions, asthma, diabetes and hypertension, were present in more than 50% of practices; 25% of practices had no clinical guidelines. Hospital prescribing was reported as 'always' or 'usually' influencing prescribing for diabetes by 57% of respondents, ischaemic heart disease by 55%, peptic ulceration by 49%, asthma by 42% and hypertension by 39%. CONCLUSIONS: General practitioner prescribing is influenced by a complex web of factors, with no single factor pre-eminent. To understand this area further, there is a need to take each of these areas and ascertain the match between doctors' perceptions and actual practice.
PMCID: PMC1239636  PMID: 8762744
3.  Setting standards of prescribing performance in primary care: use of a consensus group of general practitioners and application of standards to practices in the north of England. 
BACKGROUND: There is considerable variation in prescribing, and existing standards against which primary care prescribing is routinely judged consist largely of local or national averages. There is thus a need for more sophisticated standards, which must be widely applicable and have credibility among the general practice profession. AIM: A study aimed to develop a range of criteria of prescribing quality, to set standards of performance for these criteria, and apply these standards to practices. METHOD: A consensus group consisting of eight general practitioners and a resource team was convened to develop and define criteria and set standards of prescribing performance using prescribing analyses and cost (PACT) data. The standards were applied to 1992-93 prescribing data from all 518 practices in the former Northern Regional Health Authority. RESULTS: The group developed criteria and set numeric standards for 13 aspects of prescribing performance in four areas: generic prescribing, prescribing within specific therapeutic groups, drugs of limited clinical value and standards based on prescribing volume. Except for generic prescribing, standards for individual criteria were achieved by between 9% and 34% of practices. For each criterion, a score was allocated based on whether the standard was achieved or not. Total scores showed considerable variation between practices. The distribution of scores was similar between fundholding and non-fundholding practices, and also between dispensing and non-dispensing practices. CONCLUSION: Using a consensus group of general practitioners it is possible to agree criteria and standards of prescribing performance. This novel approach offers a professionally driven method for assessing the quality of prescribing in primary care.
PMCID: PMC1239506  PMID: 8745847

Results 1-3 (3)