Evidence-based clinical practice guideline: Reconstruction after skin cancer resection.

A multi-disciplinary work group involving stakeholders from various backgrounds and societies was convened to develop guidelines for the management of reconstruction after skin cancer resection. The goal was to identify areas of common ground and provide evidence-based recommendations to improve patient care. Given the heterogeneity of reconstructive techniques and clinical scenarios, investigation centered around common elements in the process. In some cases, a distinction was made between treatment options in the office-based setting as opposed to those in the facility setting. A systematic literature review was performed, and an established appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology). Final recommendations are related to concepts concerning the timing of reconstruction, management of anticoagulation, use of antibiotics, methods of pain control, and follow-up assessment. At times, there was insufficient evidence to make high-level recommendations. The literature analysis highlights the need for additional methodologically robust studies in this area, to help guide clinical practice.

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline: Reconstruction after Skin Cancer Resection.

SUMMARY: A multi-disciplinary work group involving stakeholders from various backgrounds and societies was convened to develop guidelines for the management of reconstruction after skin cancer resection. The goal was to identify areas of common ground and provide evidence-based recommendations to improve patient care. Given the heterogeneity of reconstructive techniques and clinical scenarios, investigation centered around common elements in the process. In some cases, a distinction was made between treatment options in the office-based setting as opposed to those in the facility setting. A systematic literature review was performed, and an established appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology). Final recommendations are related to concepts concerning the timing of reconstruction, management of anticoagulation, use of antibiotics, methods of pain control, and follow-up assessment. At times, there was insufficient evidence to make high-level recommendations. The literature analysis highlights the need for additional methodologically robust studies in this area, to help guide clinical practice.

Evidence-Based Performance Measures for Reconstruction after Skin Cancer Resection: A Multidisciplinary Performance Measure Set.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Plastic Surgeons commissioned the multidisciplinary Performance Measure Development Work Group on Reconstruction after Skin Cancer Resection to identify and draft quality measures for the care of patients undergoing skin cancer reconstruction. Included stakeholders were the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery, the American College of Mohs Surgery, the American Society for Mohs Surgery, and a patient representative. METHODS: Two outcome measures and five process measures were identified. The outcome measures included the following: (1) patient satisfaction with information provided by their surgeon before their facial procedure, and (2) postprocedural urgent care or emergency room use. The process measures focus on antibiotic stewardship, anticoagulation continuation and/or coordination of care, opioid avoidance, and verification of clear margins. RESULTS: All measures in this report were approved by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Quality and Performance Measures Work Group and Executive Committee, and the stakeholder societies. CONCLUSION: The work group recommends the use of these measures for quality initiatives, Continuing Medical Education, Continuous Certification, Qualified Clinical Data Registry reporting, and national quality reporting programs.

American Society of Plastic Surgeons Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline Revision: Reduction Mammaplasty.

SUMMARY: A multidisciplinary work group involving stakeholders from various backgrounds and societies convened to revise the guideline for reduction mammaplasty. The goal was to develop evidence-based patient care recommendations using the new American Society of Plastic Surgeons guideline methodology. The work group prioritized reviewing the evidence around the need for surgery as first-line treatment, regardless of resection weight or volume. Other factors evaluated included the need for drains, the need for postoperative oral antibiotics, risk factors that increase complications, a comparison in outcomes between the two most popular techniques (inferior and superomedial), the impact of local anesthetic on narcotic use and other nonnarcotic pain management strategies, the use of epinephrine, and the need for specimen pathology. A systematic literature review was performed, and an established appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology). Evidence-based recommendations were made and strength was determined based on the level of evidence and the assessment of benefits and harms.

Evidence-Based Performance Measures for Rhinoplasty: A Multidisciplinary Performance Measure Set.

SUMMARY: The American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, and the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery commissioned the multidisciplinary Rhinoplasty Performance Measure Development Work Group to identify and draft quality measures for the care of patients undergoing both functional and aesthetic rhinoplasty. One outcome measure and three process measures were identified. The outcome looked at patient satisfaction with rhinoplasty procedures. The process measures look at motivations and expectations of the procedure, airway assessment, and nonnarcotic shared decision-making strategies for pain management. All measures in this report were approved by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Quality and Performance Measures Work Group and Executive Committee, and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The Rhinoplasty Society, and the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. The Work Group recommends the use of these measures for quality initiatives, Continuing Medical Education, Maintenance of Certification, Qualified Clinical Data Registry reporting, and national quality reporting programs.

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline: Reconstruction after Skin Cancer Resection.

SUMMARY: A multi-disciplinary work group involving stakeholders from various backgrounds and societies was convened to develop guidelines for the management of reconstruction after skin cancer resection. The goal was to identify areas of common ground and provide evidence-based recommendations to improve patient care. Given the heterogeneity of reconstructive techniques and clinical scenarios, investigation centered around common elements in the process. In some cases, a distinction was made between treatment options in the office-based setting as opposed to those in the facility setting. A systematic literature review was performed, and an established appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology). Final recommendations are related to concepts concerning the timing of reconstruction, management of anticoagulation, use of antibiotics, methods of pain control, and follow-up assessment. At times, there was insufficient evidence to make high-level recommendations. The literature analysis highlights the need for additional methodologically robust studies in this area, to help guide clinical practice.

Evidence-Based Performance Measures for Autologous Breast Reconstruction: An American Society of Plastic Surgeons Quality Performance Measure Set.

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons commissioned the Autologous Breast Reconstruction Performance Measure Development Work Group to identify and draft quality measures for the care of patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction and other breast reconstruction surgery. Four outcome measures and one process measure were identified. Outcomes include patient satisfaction with information for all breast reconstruction, a subscale of the BREAST-Q, and the length of stay, operative time, and rate of blood transfusion for autologous blood transfusion. The process measure looks at coordination of care around managing the breast reconstruction patient's care, with the physician coordinating the ongoing care, be it an oncologist, radiologist, other specialist, or primary care physician. All measures in this report were approved by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Quality and Performance Measures Work Group and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Executive Committee. The Work Group recommends the use of these measures for quality initiatives, continuing medical education, maintenance of certification, American Society of Plastic Surgeons' Qualified Clinical Data Registry reporting, and national quality-reporting programs.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline: Reconstruction after skin cancer resection

A multi-disciplinary work group involving stakeholders from various backgrounds and societies was convened to develop guidelines for the management of reconstruction after skin cancer resection. The goal was to identify areas of common ground and provide evidence-based recommendations to improve patient care. Given the heterogeneity of reconstructive techniques and clinical scenarios, investigation centered around common elements in the process. In some cases, a distinction was made between treatment options in the office-based setting as opposed to those in the facility setting. A systematic literature review was performed, and an established appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology). Final recommendations are related to concepts concerning the timing of reconstruction, management of anticoagulation, use of antibiotics, methods of pain control, and follow-up assessment. At times, there was insufficient evidence to make high-level recommendations. The literature analysis highlights the need for additional methodologically robust studies in this area, to help guide clinical practice.

Building better guidelines with BRIDGE-Wiz: development and evaluation of a software assistant to promote clarity, transparency, and implementability.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the feasibility of capturing the knowledge required to create guideline recommendations in a systematic, structured, manner using a software assistant. Practice guidelines constitute an important modality that can reduce the delivery of inappropriate care and support the introduction of new knowledge into clinical practice. However, many guideline recommendations are vague and underspecified, lack any linkage to supporting evidence or documentation of how they were developed, and prove to be difficult to transform into systems that influence the behavior of care providers. METHODS: The BRIDGE-Wiz application (Building Recommendations In a Developer's Guideline Editor) uses a wizard approach to address the questions: (1) under what circumstances? (2) who? (3) ought (with what level of obligation?) (4) to do what? (5) to whom? (6) how and why? Controlled natural language was applied to create and populate a template for recommendation statements. RESULTS: The application was used by five national panels to develop guidelines. In general, panelists agreed that the software helped to formalize a process for authoring guideline recommendations and deemed the application usable and useful. DISCUSSION: Use of BRIDGE-Wiz promotes clarity of recommendations by limiting verb choices, building active voice recommendations, incorporating decidability and executability checks, and limiting Boolean connectors. It enhances transparency by incorporating systematic appraisal of evidence quality, benefits, and harms. BRIDGE-Wiz promotes implementability by providing a pseudocode rule, suggesting deontic modals, and limiting the use of 'consider'. CONCLUSION: Users found that BRIDGE-Wiz facilitates the development of clear, transparent, and implementable guideline recommendations.