ABSTRACT
In Brazil, there have been some initiatives to improve the development of Ministry of Health clinical protocols and therapeutic guidelines (PCDTs in Portuguese, and clinical practice guidelines-CPGs, in English) and their implementation so that best practices can be disseminated and adopted at multiple levels of health systems. One of the initiatives was to conduct a pilot project to improve the format of these CPGs. The objective of this article is to present the processes and results of the pilot project, including the development of a new standardized format for CPGs to promote national dissemination and uptake. The pilot project was designed in three phases: identification and selection of strategies to effectively implement clinical practice guidelines, definition of the ideal characteristics for the format of CPGs, and development and implementation of the new format. Initially, an overview of systematic reviews was conducted to map the global evidence on the effectiveness of dissemination and implementation strategies of CPGs. Among the most effective interventions, a low-cost strategy was selected to improve the format of CPGs, namely a full format and a short format. The two formats were evaluated for usefulness and acceptability by professionals who use or develop CPGs, and after several reiterations, the formats were finalized, considering the progression of care (from diagnosis of the disease to treatment, including specific technologies indicated in each stage of the disease). Related to the technical aspects, the visual presentation of the CPGs was improved, ensuring that key information was easily identified for decision-making by end users. The initial phase of implementation involved 33 clinical conditions, equating to approximately 20% of published CPGs. It is anticipated that disseminating the CPGs in the new formats will promote the accessibility of information and implementation of standardized CPGs by health professionals in the public health sector (servicing more than 210 million Brazilians). Further research should be considered to determine the impact of the use of the new CPGs formats, contributing to the knowledge base related to the implementation of guidelines in Brazil and internationally.
Subject(s)
Government Programs , Humans , Pilot Projects , Brazil , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Clinical ProtocolsABSTRACT
This article seeks to identify and discuss evidence-informed options to address the judicialization of health. The Supporting Policy Relevant Reviews and Trials Tools were used to define the problem and the search strategy, which was carried out in the following databases: PubMed, Health Systems Evidence, Campbell, Cochrane Collaboration, Rx for Change Database, and PDQ-Evidence. Selection and assessment of methodological quality was performed by two independent reviewers. The results were presented in a narrative synthesis. This study selected 19 systematic reviews that pointed out four strategies to address the judicialization of health in Brazil: 1) Rapid response service, 2) Continuous education program, 3) Mediation service between the parties involved, and 4) Adoption of a computer-based, online decision-making support tool and patient-mediated interventions. This study therefore presented and characterized four options that can be considered to address the judicialization of health. The implementation of these options must ensure the participation of different actors, reflecting on different contexts and the impact on the health system. The availability of human and financial resources and the training of teams are critical points for the successful implementation of the options.
A fim de identificar e discutir opções informadas por evidências para abordar a judicialização da saúde no Brasil, utilizou-se as Ferramentas SUPPORT (Supporting Policy Relevant Reviews and Trials). A busca foi realizada nas bases PubMed; Health Systems Evidence; Campbell Collaboration; Cochrane Library; Rx for Change Database e PDQ-Evidence. A seleção e avaliação da qualidade metodológica foi feita por dois revisores independentes. Os resultados foram apresentados numa síntese narrativa. Dezenove revisões sistemáticas apontam quatro opções: 1) Serviço de respostas rápidas; 2) Programa de educação permanente; 3) Serviço de mediação entre as partes envolvidas; e 4) Adoção de ferramenta online (baseada em computador) de suporte à decisão e de intervenções mediadas por pacientes. Conclusões: Apresentamos e caracterizamos quatro opções que podem ser consideradas para abordar a judicialização da saúde. A implementação dessas opções deve garantir a participação de diferentes atores, refletindo sobre variados contextos. Recursos humanos e financeiros, capacitação das equipes, são os principais pontos críticos.
Subject(s)
Health Policy , Public Health , Humans , Brazil , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Negotiating , Decision Making , Decision Support Systems, ClinicalABSTRACT
Resumo A fim de identificar e discutir opções informadas por evidências para abordar a judicialização da saúde no Brasil, utilizou-se as Ferramentas SUPPORT (Supporting Policy Relevant Reviews and Trials). A busca foi realizada nas bases PubMed; Health Systems Evidence; Campbell Collaboration; Cochrane Library; Rx for Change Database e PDQ-Evidence. A seleção e avaliação da qualidade metodológica foi feita por dois revisores independentes. Os resultados foram apresentados numa síntese narrativa. Dezenove revisões sistemáticas apontam quatro opções: 1) Serviço de respostas rápidas; 2) Programa de educação permanente; 3) Serviço de mediação entre as partes envolvidas; e 4) Adoção de ferramenta online (baseada em computador) de suporte à decisão e de intervenções mediadas por pacientes. Conclusões: Apresentamos e caracterizamos quatro opções que podem ser consideradas para abordar a judicialização da saúde. A implementação dessas opções deve garantir a participação de diferentes atores, refletindo sobre variados contextos. Recursos humanos e financeiros, capacitação das equipes, são os principais pontos críticos.
Abstract This article seeks to identify and discuss evidence-informed options to address the judicialization of health. The Supporting Policy Relevant Reviews and Trials Tools were used to define the problem and the search strategy, which was carried out in the following databases: PubMed, Health Systems Evidence, Campbell, Cochrane Collaboration, Rx for Change Database, and PDQ-Evidence. Selection and assessment of methodological quality was performed by two independent reviewers. The results were presented in a narrative synthesis. This study selected 19 systematic reviews that pointed out four strategies to address the judicialization of health in Brazil: 1) Rapid response service, 2) Continuous education program, 3) Mediation service between the parties involved, and 4) Adoption of a computer-based, online decision-making support tool and patient-mediated interventions. This study therefore presented and characterized four options that can be considered to address the judicialization of health. The implementation of these options must ensure the participation of different actors, reflecting on different contexts and the impact on the health system. The availability of human and financial resources and the training of teams are critical points for the successful implementation of the options.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The reassessment of technologies and services offered by healthcare systems is recent initiative and still without a widely adopted and evaluated method. To a better understanding of this process in Brazil, we have described the health technology reassessment (HTR) performed by the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation (Conitec) into Brazilian public health system (SUS). METHODS: A documental, exploratory, descriptive, retrospective study with qualitative-quantitative approach regarding the HTR performed by Conitec from January 2012 to November 2017. RESULTS: After applying the criteria of inclusion and exclusion, we selected 47 technologies for this study. The vast majority of the demands (41 demands) came from the public sector, and only six from the private sector. Most of the requests referred to the exclusion of specific indication; followed by extension of use, withdraw of the technology from SUS, maintenance, and restriction of use. The dimensions of analysis found in the recommendation reports were scientific evidence on efficacy, effectiveness and safety, disease-related issues, issues related to the use of technology, costs, and social participation. However, these dimensions were not included in all analysis, and a standardized structure of the reports has not been observed. The most relevant decision factors considered for decision-making were efficacy, safety and use of the technology. CONCLUSION: During a six-year period of Conitec actuation, we could find some reassessments of technologies that are available in SUS. We observed that these activities had enabled progress, however, they are still not yet structured, with gaps in the selection process, and the assessment since no methodology and criteria for proper conduct were established.
