A scoping review of evidence-based guidance and guidelines published by general practice professional organizations.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) need robust, up-to-date evidence to deliver high-quality patient care. There is limited literature regarding the role of international GP professional organizations in developing and publishing clinical guidelines to support GPs clinical decision making. OBJECTIVE: To identify evidence-based guidance and clinical guidelines produced by GP professional organizations and summarize their content, structure, and methods of development and dissemination. METHODS: Scoping review of GP professional organizations following Joanna Briggs Institute guidance. Four databases were searched and a grey literature search was conducted. Studies were included if they were: (i) evidence-based guidance documents or clinical guidelines produced de novo by a national GP professional organization, (ii) developed to support GPs clinical care, and (iii) published in the last 10 years. GP professional organizations were contacted to provide supplementary information. A narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Six GP professional organizations and 60 guidelines were included. The most common de novo guideline topics were mental health, cardiovascular disease, neurology, pregnancy and women's health and preventive care. All guidelines were developed using a standard evidence-synthesis method. All included documents were disseminated through downloadable pdfs and peer review publications. GP professional organizations indicated that they generally collaborate with or endorse guidelines developed by national or international guideline producing bodies. CONCLUSION: The findings of this scoping review provide an overview of de novo guideline development by GP professional organizations and can support collaboration between GP organizations worldwide thus reducing duplication of effort, facilitating reproducibility, and identifying areas of standardization. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JXQ26.

GP preferences for, access to, and use of evidence in clinical practice: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: GPs aim to provide patient-centred care combining clinical evidence, clinical judgement, and patient priorities. Despite a recognition of the need to translate evidence to support patient care, barriers exist to the use of evidence in practice. AIM: To ascertain the needs and preferences of GPs regarding evidence-based guidance to support patient care. The study also aimed to prioritise content and optimise structure and dissemination of future evidence-based guidance. DESIGN & SETTING: This was a convergent parallel mixed-methods study in collaboration with the national GP professional body in the Republic of Ireland (Irish College of General Practitioners [ICGP]). Quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated at the interpretive level. METHOD: A national GP survey was administered via the ICGP (December 2020) and seven GP focus groups were undertaken (April-May 2021). RESULTS: Of 3496 GPs, a total of 509 responders (14.6%) completed the survey and 40 GP participants took part in focus groups. Prescribing updates, interpretation of test results, chronic disease management, and older person care were the preferred topics for future evidence-based guidance. GPs reported that they required rapid access to up-to-date and relevant evidence summaries online for use in clinical practice. Access to more comprehensive reviews for the purposes of continuing education and teaching was also a priority. Multimodal forms of dissemination were preferred to increase uptake of evidence in practice. CONCLUSION: GPs indicated that rapid access to up-to-date, summarised evidence-based resources, available from their professional organisation, is preferred. Evidence should reflect the disease burden of the population and involve multifaceted dissemination approaches.

Counting on commitment; the quality of primary care-led diabetes management in a system with minimal incentives.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to assess the performance of three primary care-led initiatives providing structured care to patients with Type 2 diabetes in Ireland, a country with minimal incentives to promote the quality of care. METHODS: Data, from three primary care initiatives, were available for 3010 adult patients with Type 2 diabetes. Results were benchmarked against the national guidelines for the management of Type 2 diabetes in the community and results from the National Diabetes Audit (NDA) for England (2008/2009) and the Scottish Diabetes Survey (2009). RESULTS: The recording of clinical processes of care was similar to results in the UK however the recording of lifestyle factors was markedly lower. Recording of HbA1c, blood pressure and lipids exceeded 85%. Recording of retinopathy screening (71%) was also comparable to England (77%) and Scotland (90%). Only 63% of patients had smoking status recorded compared to 99% in Scotland while 70% had BMI recorded compared to 89% in England. A similar proportion of patients in this initiative and the UK achieved clinical targets. Thirty-five percent of patients achieved a target HbA1c of < 6.5% (< 48 mmol/mol) compared to 25% in England. Applying the NICE target for blood pressure (≤ 140/80 mmHg), 54% of patients reached this target comparable to 60% in England. Slightly less patients were categorised as obese (> 30 kg/m²) in Ireland (50%, n = 1060) compared to Scotland (54%). CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated what can be achieved by proactive and interested health professionals in the absence of national infrastructure to support high quality diabetes care. The quality of primary care-led diabetes management in the three initiatives studied appears broadly consistent with results from the UK with the exception of recording lifestyle factors. The challenge facing health systems is to establish quality assurance a responsibility for all health care professionals rather than the subject of special interest for a few.

A scoping review protocol of evidence-based guidance and guidelines published by general practitioner professional organisations.

Introduction: General practitioners (GPs) strive to use a patient centred approach to achieve shared decision making by integrating clinical evidence, clinical judgement, and patient priorities. This protocol outlines a scoping review to identify what evidence-based guidance is produced by general practitioner professional organisations internationally to support general practice clinical decision making. Methods: This scoping review will be conducted using the framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), will be used to guide the reporting. Two researchers will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus), grey literature sources and contact international GP professional organisations directly to identify appropriate studies for inclusion. Key information will be categorised and classified to generate a summary of the methods used internationally to develop and implement evidence-based guides for general practitioners and a narrative synthesis will be conducted. Conclusions: This scoping review will identify the role of GP professional organisations in generating, endorsing and/or disseminating evidence-based guidance for supporting general practitioner's clinical decision making to benefit patient care.

Predictors of attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening among people with type 2 diabetes: Secondary analysis of data from primary care.

AIMS: To estimate the uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening among adults with type 2 diabetes and to identify and compare factors associated with attendance at the national diabetic retinal screening programme, and other screening services provided by ophthalmic surgeons, community ophthalmologists and optometrists. METHODS: An observational retrospective cohort study was carried out using data from the 2016 audit of care delivered by general practices (n = 30) enrolled in a structured diabetes care initiative. Attendance at any screening in the previous 12 months, and attendance across different types of service (national programme and other screening services) was calculated. Logistic regression was performed to examine predictors associated with (1) attendance at any screening and (2) attendance at the national programme (RetinaScreen). Sociodemographic, clinical, and lifestyle factors were examined as predictors. RESULTS: Data were available for 1106 people with type 2 diabetes aged ≥18 years. Overall, 863 (78%) of patients had a record of screening attendance in the previous 12 months. Of those screened, 494 (57.2%) attended RetinaScreen only, 258 (28.7%) attended other screening services only, and 111 (12.9%) attended both services. Statistically significant predictors of attendance at any screening were tablet/injectable controlled diabetes, attendance at a diabetes nurse specialist (DNS) in the past 12 months and a blood glucose level which was not on target (HbA1c >7.0% or >53 mmol/mol). In addition to these factors, when examining predictors of attendance at the national screening programme specifically, females were less likely to attend. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients managed in a structured diabetes care programme in primary care attended screening. Those with on target blood glucose control, those who were on oral or injectable medication or had been seen by a DNS were more likely to attend for annual screening. Of those who attended screening, almost one-third attended other screening services and so were not availing of the national programme, which is free, quality assured and has an integrated treatment arm.

Quality of life and quality of care in patients with diabetes experiencing different models of care.

OBJECTIVE: To study variation in quality of life and quality of care in patients with diabetes experiencing three different models of care: traditional hospital care, hospital/general practitioner (GP) shared care, and structured GP care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study involving 1,456 patients with diabetes (71% response rate) was conducted. Quality of life was assessed with the Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life (ADDQoL) instrument and quality of care with a 10-point process-of-care report card. RESULTS: The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for a high (upper quartile) ADDQoL score was significantly increased in the structured care relative to the traditional hospital care group (OR 1.7 [95% CI 1.2-2.5]). A significantly higher proportion of structured GP care patients reported compliance with seven or more key process-of-care measures compared with the other models of care. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes quality of life may be enhanced when care is provided in a primary care setting without compromising quality of care.

Management of diabetes in primary care: a structured-care approach.

BACKGROUND: In the Irish Midland Health Service Executive (HSE) Diabetes Structured Care Project, additional resources were targeted at general practice in the absence of a local hospital-based specialized diabetes unit. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the performance of the Midland HSE Diabetes Structured Care programme in 2003, bench-marked against Primary Care Trust (PCT) data from the 2003/2004 National Diabetes Audit for England. METHODS: Data on 947 patients (72% of eligible patients) from all 20 general practices participating in the structured-care programme were collected retrospectively over a 12-month period. The data included demographic and clinical variables as well as key process-of-care and intermediate outcome indicators used in the National Diabetes Audit for England. RESULTS: The level of recording of process-of-care measures was near or above the upper quartile for PCTs in England. The proportion of patients with HbA(1c) concentrations at target levels (<6.5%) in the Midlands HSE project (26.8%) was virtually identical to the upper quartile level for PCTs in England (27.4%). The proportion of patients reaching target total cholesterol levels (<5.0 mmol/l) (54.6%) was close to the mean for PCTs in England (56.6%), and performance with regard to target blood pressure levels was equally poor in both the Midlands HSE (18.0%) and in PCTs in England (20.8%). CONCLUSION: Primary-care-led structured care, with relatively limited but well-focused investment, can achieve quality of care for patients with diabetes, comparable to international best practice.