Comparison Between the Yield of Different Number of Blood Cultures in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients With Suspected Septicemia.

OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to evaluate the optimal and financially efficient numbers of blood cultures (BC) required in our chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients with suspected bloodstream infections (BSI). DESIGN: This is a prospective, cross-sectional study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Nephrology, The Kidney Center Post-Graduate-Training-Institute, Karachi from July 2020 to December 2020. METHODS: Single, two, or three BC were taken from CKD patients with suspected BSI within the first 24 hours and were incubated in the BACTEC 1050 CMBCS for five days. A positive culture was reported as per standard protocol. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-three BC sets were collected from 272 patients. A single set of BC was obtained from 111 (40.8%), two sets from 111 (40.8%), and three from 50 (18.4%) patients. BC from 93 patients showed growth of organisms in at least one set. Fifty-six (60.2%) episodes of BSI were detected with the first set, 34 (36.5%) with the second set, and 03 (3.2%) with the third set of BC. The detection rate of BSI was 60.2% with the first set, 97.7% with the first two sets, and 100% with the first three sets of BC. The most common source of infection was central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) (33.3%), followed by urinary tract (29%), lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) (16%), and arteriovenous fistula (AVF) (7.5%). 93.5% episodes of BSI, were monomicrobial. The most common monomicrobial organism was methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (22.6%). CONCLUSION: Two properly collected BC sets might be sufficient for an adequate diagnosis of BSI, in CKD patients especially in resource-limited settings.

The updating of clinical practice guidelines: insights from an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have become increasingly popular, and the methodology to develop guidelines has evolved enormously. However, little attention has been given to the updating process, in contrast to the appraisal of the available literature. We conducted an international survey to identify current practices in CPG updating and explored the need to standardize and improve the methods. METHODS: We developed a questionnaire (28 items) based on a review of the existing literature about guideline updating and expert comments. We carried out the survey between March and July 2009, and it was sent by email to 106 institutions: 69 members of the Guidelines International Network who declared that they developed CPGs; 30 institutions included in the U.S. National Guideline Clearinghouse database that published more than 20 CPGs; and 7 institutions selected by an expert committee. RESULTS: Forty-four institutions answered the questionnaire (42% response rate). In the final analysis, 39 completed questionnaires were included. Thirty-six institutions (92%) reported that they update their guidelines. Thirty-one institutions (86%) have a formal procedure for updating their guidelines, and 19 (53%) have a formal procedure for deciding when a guideline becomes out of date. Institutions describe the process as moderately rigorous (36%) or acknowledge that it could certainly be more rigorous (36%). Twenty-two institutions (61%) alert guideline users on their website when a guideline is older than three to five years or when there is a risk of being outdated. Twenty-five institutions (64%) support the concept of "living guidelines," which are continuously monitored and updated. Eighteen institutions (46%) have plans to design a protocol to improve their guideline-updating process, and 21 (54%) are willing to share resources with other organizations. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to describe the process of updating CPGs among prominent guideline institutions across the world, providing a comprehensive picture of guideline updating. There is an urgent need to develop rigorous international standards for this process and to minimize duplication of effort internationally.

CoCanCPG. Coordination of cancer clinical practice in Europe.

All European countries are facing common challenges for delivering appropriate, evidence-based care to patients with cancer. Despite tangible improvements in diagnosis and treatment, marked differences in cancer survival exist throughout Europe. The reliable translation of new research evidence into consistent patient-oriented strategies is a key endeavour to overcome inequalities in healthcare. Clinical-practice guidelines are important tools for improving quality of care by informing professionals and patients about the most appropriate clinical practice. Guideline programmes in different countries use similar strategies to achieve similar goals. This results in unnecessary duplication of effort and inefficient use of resources. While different initiatives at the international level have attempted to improve the quality of guidelines, less investment has been made to overcome existing fragmentation and duplication of effort in cancer guideline development and research. To provide added value to existing initiatives and foster equitable access to evidence-based cancer care in Europe, CoCanCPG will establish cooperation between cancer guideline programmes. CoCanCPG is an ERA-Net coordinated by the French National Cancer Institute with 17 partners from 11 countries. The CoCanCPG partners will achieve their goal through an ambitious, stepwise approach with a long-term perspective, involving: 1. implementing a common framework for sharing knowledge and skills; 2. developing shared activities for guideline development; 3. assembling a critical mass for pertinent research into guideline methods; 4. implementing an appropriate framework for cooperation. Successful development of joint activities involves learning how to adopt common quality standards and how to share responsibilities, while taking into account the cultural and organisational diversity of the participating organisations. Languages barriers and different organisational settings add a level of complexity to setting up transnational collaboration. Through its activities, CoCanCPG will make an important contribution towards better access to evidence-based cancer practices and thus contribute to reducing inequalities and improving care for patients with cancer across Europe.