The Ariadne principles: how to handle multimorbidity in primary care consultations.

Multimorbidity is a health issue mostly dealt with in primary care practice. As a result of their generalist and patient-centered approach, long-lasting relationships with patients, and responsibility for continuity and coordination of care, family physicians are particularly well placed to manage patients with multimorbidity. However, conflicts arising from the application of multiple disease oriented guidelines and the burden of diseases and treatments often make consultations challenging. To provide orientation in decision making in multimorbidity during primary care consultations, we developed guiding principles and named them after the Greek mythological figure Ariadne. For this purpose, we convened a two-day expert workshop accompanied by an international symposium in October 2012 in Frankfurt, Germany. Against the background of the current state of knowledge presented and discussed at the symposium, 19 experts from North America, Europe, and Australia identified the key issues of concern in the management of multimorbidity in primary care in panel and small group sessions and agreed upon making use of formal and informal consensus methods. The proposed preliminary principles were refined during a multistage feedback process and discussed using a case example. The sharing of realistic treatment goals by physicians and patients is at the core of the Ariadne principles. These result from i) a thorough interaction assessment of the patient's conditions, treatments, constitution, and context; ii) the prioritization of health problems that take into account the patient's preferences - his or her most and least desired outcomes; and iii) individualized management realizes the best options of care in diagnostics, treatment, and prevention to achieve the goals. Goal attainment is followed-up in accordance with a re-assessment in planned visits. The occurrence of new or changed conditions, such as an increase in severity, or a changed context may trigger the (re-)start of the process. Further work is needed on the implementation of the formulated principles, but they were recognized and appreciated as important by family physicians and primary care researchers.Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/222.

Current guidelines poorly address multimorbidity: pilot of the interaction matrix method.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a framework to identify and classify interactions within and among treatments and conditions and to test this framework with guidelines on chronic heart failure (CHF) and its frequent comorbidity. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Text analysis of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on CHF and 18 conditions co-occurring in ≥5% of CHF patients (2-4 guidelines per disease). We extracted data on interactions between CHF and comorbidity and key recommendations on diagnostic and therapeutic management. From a subset of data, we derived 13 subcategories within disease-disease (Di-Di-I), disease-drug (Di-D-I), drug-drug interactions (DDI) and synergistic treatments. We classified the interactions and tested the interrater reliability, refined the framework, and agreed on the matrix of interactions. RESULTS: We included 48 guidelines; two-thirds provided information about comorbidity. In total, we identified N = 247 interactions (on average, 14 per comorbidity): 68 were Di-Di-I, 115 were Di-D-I, 12 were DDI, and 52 were synergisms. All 18 comorbidities contributed at least one interaction. CONCLUSION: The interaction matrix provides a structure to present different types of interactions between an index disease and comorbidity. Guideline developers may consider the matrix to support clinical decision making in multimorbidity. Further research is needed to show its relevance to improve guidelines and health outcomes.

Developing search strategies for clinical practice guidelines in SUMSearch and Google Scholar and assessing their retrieval performance.

BACKGROUND: Information overload, increasing time constraints, and inappropriate search strategies complicate the detection of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The aim of this study was to provide clinicians with recommendations for search strategies to efficiently identify relevant CPGs in SUMSearch and Google Scholar. METHODS: We compared the retrieval efficiency (retrieval performance) of search strategies to identify CPGs in SUMSearch and Google Scholar. For this purpose, a two-term GLAD (GuideLine And Disease) strategy was developed, combining a defined CPG term with a specific disease term (MeSH term). We used three different CPG terms and nine MeSH terms for nine selected diseases to identify the most efficient GLAD strategy for each search engine. The retrievals for the nine diseases were pooled. To compare GLAD strategies, we used a manual review of all retrievals as a reference standard. The CPGs detected had to fulfil predefined criteria, e.g., the inclusion of therapeutic recommendations. Retrieval performance was evaluated by calculating so-called diagnostic parameters (sensitivity, specificity, and "Number Needed to Read" [NNR]) for search strategies. RESULTS: The search yielded a total of 2830 retrievals; 987 (34.9%) in Google Scholar and 1843 (65.1%) in SUMSearch. Altogether, we found 119 unique and relevant guidelines for nine diseases (reference standard). Overall, the GLAD strategies showed a better retrieval performance in SUMSearch than in Google Scholar. The performance pattern between search engines was similar: search strategies including the term "guideline" yielded the highest sensitivity (SUMSearch: 81.5%; Google Scholar: 31.9%), and search strategies including the term "practice guideline" yielded the highest specificity (SUMSearch: 89.5%; Google Scholar: 95.7%), and the lowest NNR (SUMSearch: 7.0; Google Scholar: 9.3). CONCLUSION: SUMSearch is a useful tool to swiftly gain an overview of available CPGs. Its retrieval performance is superior to that of Google Scholar, where a search is more time consuming, as substantially more retrievals have to be reviewed to detect one relevant CPG. In both search engines, the CPG term "guideline" should be used to obtain a comprehensive overview of CPGs, and the term "practice guideline" should be used if a less time consuming approach for the detection of CPGs is desired.

[The German Guideline Clearinghouse on Breast Cancer: the need for frequent updating of breast cancer guidelines requires effective guideline updating procedures]. / Leitlinien-Clearingverfahren Mammakarzinom: Die Notwendigkeit einer häufigen Aktualisierung von Mammakarzinom-Leitlinien erfordert effektive Vorgehensweisen bei der Fortschreibung von Leitlinien.

In order to promote the quality of health care and guidelines in Germany the German Guideline Clearinghouse (Sponsors: German Medical Association, National Association of the Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, German Hospital Federation, Associations of the Sickness Funds and the Statutory Pension Insurance) was established at the Agency for Quality in Medicine (AQuMed) in 1999. The results of the 10th Guideline Clearing Project, the Guideline Clearing Report "Breast Cancer", were published in December 2003. In a systematic search using English/German language guideline databases and literature databases (Medline, Healthstar, Embase), 16 national guidelines were identified which were in accordance to the inclusion criteria (breast cancer treatment; German or English language; published after 1992; new guideline or genuine update (no adaptation); recommended for country-wide implementation). The methodological quality of these 16 guidelines was evaluated using the appraisal instrument of the German Guideline Clearinghouse, the checklist "Methodological Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines". A peer review of the guidelines was performed by a multidisciplinary focus group of experts (intended guideline users from clinical and ambulatory settings as well as patients). This group consented comments and recommendations for actions of health care policy makers in Germany for a German breast cancer guideline based on examples from the appraised guidelines. None of the identified guidelines contained information about all of the 24 key topics that the focus group considered to be relevant for a German national guideline. The selected exemplary text extracts from the evaluated guidelines can be used as benchmarks and example sources for the development of a national German breast cancer guideline. From the beginning, patients should be involved in the development process within a multidisciplinary team. Due to the rapid emergence of new evidence, oncology guidelines need an effective procedure for updating in order to ensure that they are able to promote health care quality by giving current recommendations based on best available evidence. International networks such as the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) will be helpful to collect and appraise the evidence for the national guideline development groups in an effective way.