A view into clinical practice guidelines: who uses them, who doesn’t and possibly, why


Submitted: 15 January 2017
Accepted: 24 April 2017
Published: 21 July 2017
Abstract Views: 3008
PDF: 943
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Medical professional societies each develop specific clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Based on the best available evidence, CPGs are intended to control variability and optimize quality of care in clinical practice. Yet, healthcare providers often do not accept or adhere to guidelines, but their reasons are not fully understood. When providers opt to choose not to follow CPGs, unfavorable patient outcomes including unequal access to treatment become negative consequences. In this small qualitative study, we will explore what causes non-adherence to CPGs and what changes have been made to CPGs from when physicians completed their medical residencies to the present. We interviewed physicians from a variety of medical specialties to assess how these changes may influence guideline adherence as well as the consequences of not following them. We found that guidelines may not be followed in cases where patients have comorbidities that are not described in the guidelines or when physicians do not incorporate new evidence and technology advances into their practice. In some specialties, physicians can develop a poor reputation if they do not adhere to the CPGs, and managed care agencies may deny reimbursement for care they provided. To best serve the physician and the patient, we need to find ways to improve CPG adherence. Tactics such as improving the methodology of CPG formation, using information technology, and creating ways to change physician attitudes and behavior are all viable options.

Graham, R, Mancher, M, Wolman, D, at al. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/13058

Ament SMC, de Groot JJA, Maessen JMC, et al. Sustainability of professionals’ adherence to clinical practice guidelines in medical care: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2015; 5: 1-13. doi:10.1 36/bmjopen-2015-008073 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008073

Wiltsey S, Kimberly J, Cook N, et al. The sustainability of new programs and innovations: a review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. Implement Sci 2012; 7: 2-17.

Berkwits, M, Inui, ST. Making Use of Qualitative Research Techniques. J Gen Intern Med 1998; 13: 195-9. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00048.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00048.x

Creswell, JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2013.

Creswell, JW. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2014.

Malterud, K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet 2001; 358: 483-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6

Moustakas, C. Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1994. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412995658

Merriam, S. B. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley imprint; 2009.

Cabana, MD, Rand, CS, Powe, NR, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? JAMA 1999; 282: 1458–64. doi:10.1001/jama.282.15.1458 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.15.1458

Saldana, J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2015.

Raghavan, D, Kim, ES. Clinical pathways: Are we training cookbook oncologists? 2016 Jun 1 [cited 2016 July 8]. Available from http://am.asco.org/clinical-pathways-are-we-training-cookbook-oncologists?et_cid=37910128&et_rid=1614915405&linkid=Raghavan

Erickson, BK, Martin, JY, Shah, MM, et al. Reasons for failure to deliver National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-adherent care in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer at an NCCN cancer center. Gynecol Oncol 2014;133:142–6. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.02.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.02.006

Falandry, C, Campone, M, Cartron, G, et al. Trends in G-CSF use in 990 patients after EORTC and ASCO guidelines. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46: 2389–98. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2010.04.031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.04.031

Link, H, Nietsch, J, Kerkmann, M, Ortner, P. Adherence to granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) guidelines to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy: A representative sample survey in Germany. Support Care Cancer 2016; 24: 67–6. doi:10.1007/s00520-015-2779-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2779-5

Goldberg, SL, Akard, LP, Dugan, MJ, et al. Barriers to physician adherence to evidence-based monitoring guidelines in chronic myelogenous leukemia. JOP 2015; 11: 398–404. doi:10.1200/JOP.2014.001099 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2014.001099

Gnant, M. Guidelines: usefulness and limitations. Breast Care (Basel) 2013; 8: 172-3. doi:10.1159/00035379

Abdelsattar, ZM, Reames, BN, Regenbogen, SE, et al. Critical evaluation of the scientific content in clinical practice guidelines. Cancer 2015; 121: 783–9. doi:10.1002/cncr.29124 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29124

Lenzer, J, Hoffman, J, Furberg, C, Ioannidis, J. Ensuring the integrity of clinical practice guidelines: A tool for protecting patients. BMJ 2013; 347: 1–10. doi:10.1136/bmj.f5535 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5535

Reames, BN, Krell, RW, Ponto, SN, Wong, SL. Critical evaluation of oncology clinical practice guidelines. JCO 2013; 31: 2563–68. doi:10.1200/JC0.2012.46.8371

Supporting Agencies

None

Munteanu, Mihaela C., and Julie Choi Jordan. 2017. “A View into Clinical Practice Guidelines: Who Uses Them, Who doesn’t and Possibly, Why”. Qualitative Research in Medicine and Healthcare 1 (2). https://doi.org/10.4081/qrmh.2017.6544.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations