Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Patient Behaviour Risk Screening, Communication and Care Planning Intervention for Hospital Settings.

Workplace violence is a common safety concern for hospital staff. The Behaviour Safety Risk Communication and Care Planning program identifies, manages and cares for patients at risk of exhibiting unsafe behaviours. This paper reports on a mixed-methods evaluation consisting of staff surveys, focus groups and open forums, screening audits, patient interviews and assessment of effectiveness measures at five hospital sites. Staff perceptions about safety risk imposed by a patient's behaviour significantly improved after this program was implemented. Opportunities exist to improve staff adherence to screening processes and communication with patients. This study provides insight for teams implementing similar interventions.

An Evaluation of Cardiology Virtual Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

A survey evaluation was conducted in the division of cardiology at a tertiary care academic centre to assess barriers, facilitators, acceptability, and feasibility of virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Survey responses from 26 health care providers, 45 patients, and 2 caregivers showed that virtual visits (primarily by telephone) were feasible and generally acceptable to most respondents. Key opportunities for improvement included availability of easy-to-use video platforms, space and equipment in clinics, provision of information to patients before visits, and appropriate selection of patients for virtual visits. Results will inform optimization of virtual care during this pandemic and beyond.

Une enquête a été menée dans la division de cardiologie d'un centre universitaire de soins tertiaires pour évaluer les facteurs qui entravent ou facilitent les soins virtuels pendant la pandémie de COVID-19, ainsi que l'acceptabilité et la faisabilité de ces soins. Selon les réponses fournies par 26 dispensateurs de soins de santé, 45 patients et deux aidants sondés, les visites virtuelles (principalement par téléphone) sont réalisables et généralement acceptables pour la plupart des répondants. Les principales possibilités d'amélioration concernent l'offre de plateformes vidéo conviviales, l'espace et l'équipement dans les cliniques, la fourniture de renseignements aux patients avant les visites et la sélection appropriée des patients pour les visites virtuelles. Les résultats permettront d'optimiser les soins virtuels au cours de cette pandémie et par la suite.

Developing and Implementing a Patient Behaviour Risk Screening, Communication and Care Planning Intervention for Hospital Settings.

Workplace violence prevention of patient behaviours is a primary safety focus in hospital settings. In response to provincial mandates, a multi-site tertiary care hospital system developed the Behaviour Safety Risk Communication and Care Planning Program. Components include patient risk screening, communication tools and care plans that outline mitigation strategies. The program has been implemented at six sites using the following strategies: educational and planning meetings, formation of steering committees, identification of champions, educational materials/training, facilitation and consultation, and audit and feedback. Our paper can guide program development and implementation in similar contexts.

Assessment of the quality of recommendations from 161 clinical practice guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence (AGREE-REX) instrument shows there is room for improvement.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of recommendations from 161 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using AGREE-REX-D (Appraisal of Guidelines REsearch and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence Draft). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study SETTING: International CPG community. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred twenty-two international CPG developers, users, and researchers. INTERVENTION: Participants were assigned to appraise one of 161 CPGs selected for the study using the AGREE-REX-D tool MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: AGREE-REX-D scores of 161 CPGs (7-point scale, maximum 7). RESULTS: Recommendations from 161 CPGs were appraised by 322 participants using the AGREE-REX-D. CPGs were developed by 67 different organizations. The total overall average score of the CPG recommendations was 4.23 (standard deviation (SD) = 1.14). AGREE-REX-D items that scored the highest were (mean; SD): evidence (5.51; 1.14), clinical relevance (5.95; SD 0.8), and patients/population relevance (4.87; SD 1.33), while the lowest scores were observed for the policy values (3.44; SD 1.53), local applicability (3,56; SD 1.47), and resources, tools, and capacity (3.49; SD 1.44) items. CPGs developed by government-supported organizations and developed in the UK and Canada had significantly higher recommendation quality scores with the AGREE-REX-D tool (p < 0.05) than their comparators. CONCLUSIONS: We found that there is significant room for improvement of some CPGs such as the considerations of patient/population values, policy values, local applicability and resources, tools, and capacity. These findings may be considered a baseline upon which to measure future improvements in the quality of CPGs.

Development and Validation of a Tool to Assess the Quality of Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations.

Importance: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may lack rigor and suitability to the setting in which they are to be applied. Methods to yield clinical practice guideline recommendations that are credible and implementable remain to be determined. Objective: To describe the development of AGREE-REX (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence), a tool designed to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guideline recommendations. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of 322 international stakeholders representing CPG developers, users, and researchers was conducted between December 2015 and March 2019. Advertisements to participate were distributed through professional organizations as well as through the AGREE Enterprise social media accounts and their registered users. Exposures: Between 2015 and 2017, participants appraised 1 of 161 CPGs using the Draft AGREE-REX tool and completed the AGREE-REX Usability Survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: Usability and measurement properties of the tool were assessed with 7-point scales (1 indicating strong disagreement and 7 indicating strong agreement). Internal consistency of items was assessed with the Cronbach α, and the Spearman-Brown reliability adjustment was used to calculate reliability for 2 to 5 raters. Results: A total of 322 participants (202 female participants [62.7%]; 83 aged 40-49 years [25.8%]) rated the survey items (on a 7-point scale). All 11 items were rated as easy to understand (with a mean [SD] ranging from 5.2 [1.38] for the alignment of values item to 6.3 [0.87] for the evidence item) and easy to apply (with a mean [SD] ranging from 4.8 [1.49] for the alignment of values item to 6.1 [1.07] for the evidence item). Participants provided favorable feedback on the tool's instructions, which were considered clear (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.06]), helpful (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.00]), and complete (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.11]). Participants considered the tool easy to use (mean [SD], 5.4 [1.32]) and thought that it added value to the guideline enterprise (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.13]). Internal consistency of the items was high (Cronbach α = 0.94). Positive correlations were found between the overall AGREE-REX score and the implementability score (r = 0.81) and the clinical credibility score (r = 0.76). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that the AGREE-REX tool can be useful in evaluating CPG recommendations, differentiating among them, and identifying those that are clinically credible and implementable for practicing health professionals and decision makers who use recommendations to inform clinical policy.

Assessment of health systems guidance using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation - Health Systems (AGREE-HS) instrument.

Health systems guidance (HSG) documents contain systematically developed statements or recommendations intended to address a health system challenge. The concept of HSG is fairly new and considerable effort has been undertaken to build tools to support the contextualization of recommendations. One example is the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation - Health Systems (AGREE-HS), created by international stakeholders and researchers, to assist in the development, reporting and evaluation of HSG. Here, we present the quality appraisal of 85 HSG documents published from 2012 to 2017 using the AGREE-HS. The AGREE-HS consists of five items (Topic, Participants, Methods, Recommendations, and Implementability), which are scored on a 7-point response scale (1=lowest quality; 7=highest quality). Overall, AGREE-HS item scores were highest for the 'Topic' and 'Recommendations' items (means above the mid-point of 4), while the 'Participants', 'Methods', and 'Implementability' items received lower scores. Documents without a specific health focus and those authored by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence group, achieved higher AGREE-HS overall scores than their comparators. No statistically significant changes in overall scores were observed over time. This is the first time that the AGREE-HS has been applied, providing a current quality status report of HSG and identifying where improvements in HSG development and reporting can be made.

Validity and usability testing of a health systems guidance appraisal tool, the AGREE-HS.

BACKGROUND: Health systems guidance (HSG) provides recommendations to address health systems challenges. No tools exist to inform HSG developers and users about the components of high quality HSG and to differentiate between HSG of varying quality. In response, we developed a tool to assist with the development, reporting and appraisal of HSG - the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Health Systems (AGREE-HS). This paper reports on the validity, usability and initial measurement properties of the AGREE-HS. METHODS: To establish face validity (Study 1), stakeholders completed a survey about the AGREE-HS and provided feedback on its content and structure. Revisions to the tool were made in response. To establish usability (Study 2), the revised tool was applied to 85 HSG documents and the appraisers provided feedback about their experiences via an online survey. An initial test of the revised tool's measurement properties, including internal consistency, inter-rater reliability and criterion validity, was conducted. Additional revisions to the tool were made in response. RESULTS: In Study 1, the AGREE-HS Overview, User Manual, quality item content and structure, and overall assessment questions were rated favourably. Participants indicated that the AGREE-HS would be useful, feasible to use, and that they would apply it in their context. In Study 2, participants indicated that the quality items were easy to understand and apply, and the User Manual, usefulness and usability of the tool were rated favourably. Study 2 participants also indicated intentions to use the AGREE-HS. CONCLUSIONS: The AGREE-HS comprises a User Manual, five quality items and two overall assessment questions. It is available at agreetrust.org.

Understanding optimal approaches to patient and caregiver engagement in the development of cancer practice guidelines: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines (PGs) can assist health care practitioners and patients to make decisions about health care options. A key component of high quality PGs is the consideration of patient values and preferences. A mixed methods study was conducted to understand optimal approaches to patient engagement in the development of cancer PGs. METHODS: Cancer patients, survivors, family members and caregivers were recruited from cancer clinics, follow-up clinics, community support programs, a provincial patient and family advisory committee, and a provincial cancer PG development program. Participants attended a workshop, completed a survey, or participated in a telephone interview, to provide information about PG awareness, attitudes, information needs, training, engagement approaches and barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: Forty-one participants (12 workshop attendees, 21 survey respondents and 8 interviewees) provided data. For those with no PG development experience, fewer than half were previously aware of PGs but perceived several benefits to the inclusion of this perspective. Common barriers to participation across the groups were time commitment, duration of the PG development process, and financial costs. Positive beliefs about the contributions that could be made and practical considerations (e.g., orientation and training, defined roles and expectations) were identified as key features in the successful integration of patients into the PG development process. There was no single model of engagement favored over another. CONCLUSIONS: Study results align with similar studies in other contexts and with international patient engagement efforts. Findings are being used to test new patient engagement models in a programmatic PG development initiative in Ontario, Canada.

Inventory of Cancer Guidelines: a tool to advance the guideline enterprise and improve the uptake of evidence.

The Inventory of Cancer Guidelines (ICG) was designed to mitigate challenges associated with inconsistencies in the quality of cancer guidelines, keeping guidelines current and the duplication of effort in guideline development. The ICG is a searchable database of quality-appraised guidelines in cancer control that also includes designations of guidelines in progress, those in need of an update and those currently being updated. From a clinical perspective, the majority of the completed guidelines target breast, lung, colorectal and prostate cancers, and focus on the treatment stage of the cancer continuum. There is considerable variability in guideline quality both within and across guideline developers, as measured by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II. Quality domains of applicability and editorial independence are the guideline quality domains that score the poorest. While the ability to inform on the status of cancer control guidelines is important, the real potential of the ICG is in its ability to leverage positive change in the guideline enterprise. Pilot projects are underway to use data from the ICG to tailor audit and feedback interventions for guideline developers and to pursue collaborative updating and guideline adaptation initiatives, using the ICG as the platform from which these partnerships can evolve.

Guideline for optimization of colorectal cancer surgery and pathology.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is evidence of gaps in care for colorectal cancer surgery related to obtaining negative resection margins and lymph node assessment. Recommendations on the surgical and pathological management of curable colon and rectal cancer were developed. METHODS: A systematic review on colorectal resection margins and lymph nodes was conducted. This evidence, combined with evidence from existing guidelines and expert consensus, was used to develop recommendations. The draft guideline was reviewed by an expert panel and was externally reviewed by practitioners in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: The search of the recent literature identified 107 articles pertinent to resection margins and lymph node assessment. The majority of the evidence was of poor quality. Of the 63 practitioners who reviewed the guideline, 97% agreed with the draft recommendations and 92% thought that the report should be approved as a practice guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving optimized performance concerning margin status and lymph node assessment requires the coordinated efforts of surgeons and pathologists, as well as other medical professionals. Focus should be on ensuring that colorectal cancers are resected with negative (R0) margins and that an adequate number of lymph nodes are assessed to allow for accurate decision making relating to prognosis and adjuvant therapy.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for adults with malignant glioma: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examines the role of chemotherapy following surgery and external beam radiotherapy for adults with newly diagnosed malignant glioma. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to August 2006 to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses. Proceedings from the 1997 to 2006 annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were also searched. RESULTS: Two RCTs reported a survival advantage in favour of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide compared with radiotherapy alone in patients with anaplastic astrocytoma or glioblastoma. Twenty-six RCTs and two meta-analyses detected either no advantage or a small survival advantage in favour of adjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Concomitant temozolomide during radiotherapy and post-radiation adjuvant temozolomide is recommended for all patients ages 18-70 with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme who are fit for radical therapy (ECOG 0-1). Temozolomide may be considered in other situations (i.e., ECOG 2, biopsy only, age > 70, intermediate grade glioma), but there is no high-level evidence to support this decision. Moreover, there are few data on long-term toxicities or quality of life with temozolomide. Adjuvant chemotherapy may be an option for younger patients with anaplastic (grade 3) astrocytoma and patients with pure or mixed oligodendroglioma. However, there is no evidence of a survival advantage from adjuvant chemotherapy in these patients, and treatment-related adverse effects and their impact upon quality of life are poorly studied. The combination of procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) is not recommended for patients with anaplastic oligodendroglioma and oligoastrocytoma.