Awareness and Application of United States Food Allergy Prevention Guidelines Among Pediatricians and Other Clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the awareness of, adherence to, and barriers to the 2017 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) peanut allergy prevention guidelines among the pediatrics health care workforce. STUDY DESIGN: Pediatricians, family physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), and dermatologists who provide care for infants were solicited for a population-based online survey, administered from June 6, 2022, through July 3, 2022. The survey collected information about NIAID guideline awareness, implementation, and barriers as well as concerns related to the guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 250 pediatricians, 250 family physicians, 504 APPs, and 253 dermatologists met inclusion criteria. Self-reported guideline awareness was significantly higher for pediatricians (76%) compared with dermatologists (58%), family physicians (52%), and APPs (45%) (P < .05). Among participants who were aware of the guidelines, most reported using part or all of the guidelines in their clinical practices. Reported practice patterns for peanut introduction in 6-month-old infants were variable and did not always align with guidelines, particularly for infants with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Although pediatricians have the highest self-reported level of NIAID guideline awareness, awareness was suboptimal irrespective of provider type. Education for all pediatric clinicians is urgently needed to promote evidence-based peanut allergy prevention practices.

How to improve the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines in the Brazilian Unified Health System? Report of a pilot project.

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.

Strategies for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in public health: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: As a source of readily available evidence, rigorously synthesized and interpreted by expert clinicians and methodologists, clinical guidelines are part of an evidence-based practice toolkit, which, transformed into practice recommendations, have the potential to improve both the process of care and patient outcomes. In Brazil, the process of development and updating of the clinical guidelines for the Brazilian Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS) is already well systematized by the Ministry of Health. However, the implementation process of those guidelines has not yet been discussed and well structured. Therefore, the first step of this project and the primary objective of this study was to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of strategies used to promote clinical practice guideline implementation and dissemination. METHODS: This overview used systematic review methodology to locate and evaluate published systematic reviews regarding strategies for clinical practice guideline implementation and adhered to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic review (PRISMA). RESULTS: This overview identified 36 systematic reviews regarding 30 strategies targeting healthcare organizations, healthcare providers and patients to promote guideline implementation. The most reported interventions were educational materials, educational meetings, reminders, academic detailing and audit and feedback. Care pathways-single intervention, educational meeting-single intervention, organizational culture, and audit and feedback-both strategies implemented in combination with others-were strategies categorized as generally effective from the systematic reviews. In the meta-analyses, when used alone, organizational culture, educational intervention and reminders proved to be effective in promoting physicians' adherence to the guidelines. When used in conjunction with other strategies, organizational culture also proved to be effective. For patient-related outcomes, education intervention showed effective results for disease target results at a short and long term. CONCLUSION: This overview provides a broad summary of the best evidence on guideline implementation. Even if the included literature highlights the various limitations related to the lack of standardization, the methodological quality of the studies, and especially the lack of conclusion about the superiority of one strategy over another, the summary of the results provided by this study provides information on strategies that have been most widely studied in the last few years and their effectiveness in the context in which they were applied. Therefore, this panorama can support strategy decision-making adequate for SUS and other health systems, seeking to positively impact on the appropriate use of guidelines, healthcare outcomes and the sustainability of the SUS.

KDOQI US Commentary on the 2020 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Candidates for Kidney Transplantation.

Evaluation of patients for kidney transplant candidacy is a comprehensive process that involves a detailed assessment of medical and surgical issues, psychosocial factors, and patients' physical and cognitive abilities with an aim of balancing the benefits of transplantation and potential risks of surgery and long-term immunosuppression. There is considerable variability among transplant centers in their approach to evaluation and decision-making regarding transplant candidacy. The 2020 KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Guidelines Outcome) clinical practice guideline on the evaluation and management of candidates for kidney transplantation provides practice recommendations that can serve as a useful reference guide to transplant professionals. The guideline, covering a broad range of topics, was developed by an international group of experts from transplant and nephrology through a review of literature published until May 2019. A work group of US transplant nephrologists convened by NKF-KDOQI (National Kidney Foundation-Kidney Disease Quality Initiative) chose key topics for this commentary with a goal of presenting a broad discussion to the US transplant community. Each section of this article has a summary of the key KDIGO guideline recommendations, followed by a brief commentary on the recommendations, their clinical utility, and potential implementation challenges. The KDOQI work group agrees broadly with the KDIGO recommendations but also recognizes and highlights the decision-making challenges that arise from lack of high-quality evidence and the need to balance equity with utility of organ transplantation.