Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters

Database
Language
Journal subject
Publication year range
1.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 158: 84-91, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37019344

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are often created through collaboration among organizations. The use of inconsistent terminology may cause poor communication and delays. This study aimed to develop a glossary of terms related to collaboration in guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A literature review of collaborative guidelines was performed to develop an initial list of terms related to guideline collaboration. The list of terms was presented to the members of the Guideline International Network Guidelines Collaboration Working Group, who provided presumptive definitions for each term and proposed additional terms to be included. The revised list was subsequently reviewed by an international, multidisciplinary panel of expert stakeholders. Recommendations received during this pre-Delphi review were implemented to augment an initial draft glossary. The glossary was then critically evaluated and refined through two rounds of Delphi surveys and a virtual consensus meeting with all panel members as Delphi participants. RESULTS: Forty-nine experts participated in the pre-Delphi survey, and 44 participated in the two-round Delphi process. Consensus was reached for 37 terms and definitions. CONCLUSION: Uptake and utilization of this guideline collaboration glossary by key organizations and stakeholder groups may facilitate collaboration among guideline-producing organizations by improving communication, minimizing conflicts, and increasing guideline development efficiency.


Subject(s)
Communication , Humans , Consensus , Delphi Technique
2.
Diabetes Care ; 44(2): 301-312, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33431422

ABSTRACT

The American Diabetes Association 2020 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes (Standards of Care) recommends a hemoglobin A1c (A1C) of <7% (53 mmol/mol) for many children with type 1 diabetes (T1D), with an emphasis on target personalization. A higher A1C target of <7.5% may be more suitable for youth who cannot articulate symptoms of hypoglycemia or have hypoglycemia unawareness and for those who do not have access to analog insulins or advanced diabetes technologies or who cannot monitor blood glucose regularly. Even less stringent A1C targets (e.g., <8%) may be warranted for children with a history of severe hypoglycemia, severe morbidities, or short life expectancy. During the "honeymoon" period and in situations where lower mean glycemia is achievable without excessive hypoglycemia or reduced quality of life, an A1C <6.5% may be safe and effective. Here, we provide a historical perspective of A1C targets in pediatrics and highlight evidence demonstrating detrimental effects of hyperglycemia in children and adolescents, including increased likelihood of brain structure and neurocognitive abnormalities, microvascular and macrovascular complications, long-term effects, and increased mortality. We also review data supporting a decrease over time in overall severe hypoglycemia risk for youth with T1D, partly associated with the use of newer insulins and devices, and weakened association between lower A1C and severe hypoglycemia risk. We present common barriers to achieving glycemic targets in pediatric diabetes and discuss some strategies to address them. We aim to raise awareness within the community on Standards of Care updates that impact this crucial goal in pediatric diabetes management.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 , Adolescent , Blood Glucose , Child , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/drug therapy , Glycated Hemoglobin/analysis , Hemoglobin, Sickle , Humans , Hypoglycemic Agents/adverse effects , Quality of Life
4.
Obstet Gynecol ; 120(2 Pt 1): 355-9, 2012 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22668586

ABSTRACT

The recent focus on health care safety is a response to the central ethical tenet of medicine--to do no harm. The delivery of safe hospital care has led to demonstrable reductions in medical errors, adverse events, and patient injuries. These improvements have led to a commensurate reduction of legal risk and the emotional toll on caregivers as well as families. It also has reinvigorated the reason many physicians went into medicine--to make a difference for women's health. The new, voluntary Safety Certification in Outpatient Practice Excellence (SCOPE) for Women's Health program of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is a means to both evaluate and recognize work in a critical but often neglected arena--the outpatient setting. It builds on infrastructure created for safety programs in hospital settings. Strong physician leadership, the development of an office culture committed to safety, communication and teamwork skills, safety programs for office-based surgery, medication safety, and tracking systems are all important for safe treatment of our patients in the office setting. The SCOPE Program defines the necessary safety goals for ambulatory women's health care and provides an educational pathway to reach those goals. SCOPE certification is an achievement recognizing the commitment of physicians and their staff to the health and safety of their patients.


Subject(s)
Patient Safety , Women's Health/standards , Ambulatory Care/standards , Female , Gynecology/organization & administration , Humans , Obstetrics/organization & administration
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL