Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
    • Podcast: NC Health Policy Forum
    • Upcoming Scientific Articles
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Subscribers
  • About Us
    • About the North Carolina Medical Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • RSS
  • Other Publications
    • North Carolina Medical Journal

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
North Carolina Medical Journal
  • Other Publications
    • North Carolina Medical Journal
  • My alerts
  • Log in
North Carolina Medical Journal

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
    • Podcast: NC Health Policy Forum
    • Upcoming Scientific Articles
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Subscribers
  • About Us
    • About the North Carolina Medical Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • RSS
  • Follow ncmj on Twitter
  • Visit ncmj on Facebook
Research ArticlePolicy Forum

Implementing Guidelines One Patient at a Time

Alex R. Kemper
North Carolina Medical Journal September 2015, 76 (4) 267-268; DOI: https://doi.org/10.18043/ncm.76.4.267
Alex R. Kemper
professor of pediatrics, Duke Clinical Research Institute and Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: alex.kemper@duke.edu
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines are an important component of health care delivery. Although guidelines can be viewed negatively, as “cookbook medicine,” many guidelines have improved care delivery. Work is needed to refine guidelines in real-world settings and to assure that they are patient-centered.

First, a few disclosures: Not only do I regularly use clinical practice guidelines in my practice as a general pediatrician, but I am also a guideline author. By synthesizing complex information, guidelines can be great tools, especially as new tests and treatments become available. Furthermore, guidelines can reduce inappropriate variations in care, potentially improving health outcomes, reducing costs, and minimizing disparities [1].

My colleagues complain about “guideline fatigue” and “cookbook medicine”—complaints that are decades old. Anecdotally, it seems that these concerns have been exacerbated by worsening time pressures and by the implementation of electronic medical records. Clinicians quite reasonably believe that they understand the course of illness in their patients, as well as their patients' preferences for treatment. In addition, they often have vast experience with the particular condition being treated.

It is not hard to identify problems with guidelines. One of my biggest frustrations is the unfortunately common use of ambiguous and vague terms [2]. Expressions like “[a specific drug] may be considered” are not helpful. What does “consider” mean? A similar problem is, for example, the recommendation that testing be performed “in childhood.” This is not helpful. When in childhood? How frequently?

Another set of problems is that guidelines are often not transparent in how they were developed. How was evidence used and graded? Are there conflicts of interest? Are the recommendations really generalizable for the population for which the guidelines were written? In addition, guidelines may not consider real-world considerations such as who will pay for the recommended actions and how they will fit into the flow of practice. This can be especially troublesome for expensive treatments that are provided repeatedly (eg, palivizumab, to prevent respiratory syncytial virus infection in high-risk infants).

Despite these challenges, guidelines often become the quality metrics by which clinicians are judged, with target goals set by practice plans or other outside entities. I believe that the recommendations developed by the National Academy of Medicine for the development of high-quality guidelines [3] should help to improve guideline development (assuming that the guideline developers can follow guidelines) and to serve as a standard for assessing clinical practice guidelines.

When I am working on guidelines, I look to a framework published more than 15 years ago to understand why physicians do not always follow clinical practice guidelines [4]. As that article notes, guideline developers would do well to consider issues of health care provider knowledge, the degree to which there will be agreement with the guideline, motivations for adoption, costs, and resources. I also believe that guidelines should be accompanied by toolkits to facilitate implementation and that guidelines should undergo real-world testing prior to dissemination. Although it is rarely possible to conduct a randomized trial of guideline implementation, there are implementation study designs that allow testing and refinement of a guideline before it is released.

Traditionally, guidelines have been released to care providers like Moses carrying down the Ten Commandments. Guideline development can be one-sided, with no feedback from the end users. I think the solution is that guidelines should be implemented in the context of a learning health system [5]. We should take the opportunity to learn from each patient, to refine how care is provided, and to make guidelines better. Such data would allow us to better tailor the guideline to specific patient needs instead of dismissing the guideline altogether. I realize that this goal is in large part aspirational. However, most providers have electronic medical records that could help us to evaluate patient outcomes, at least for certain conditions. One of the most exciting developments in clinical practice guidelines is the use of Standardized Clinical Assessment and Management Plans (SCAMPs), which are flexible clinical practice guidelines that evolve over time using real-world clinical experience [6].

I am hopeful that the need to participate in quality improvement activities for maintenance of certification or the emergence of other reporting requirements could prompt clinicians to work together on efforts to strengthen guidelines and make sure that they are clinically relevant and effective. Looking into the near future, I believe that guidelines will increasingly be explicit in the incorporation of patient values and unique personal characteristics (eg, polymorphisms related to drug metabolism). These are some of the exciting goals of personalized medicine.

I do believe that guidelines make me a better pediatrician. I also believe that there is great opportunity to make guidelines better and that we would all do well to be critical, but not dismissive, in appraising new guidelines when they are released. I believe that it is important that we critically evaluate the care that we provide and use that evaluation to help improve the overall quality of care that patients receive. Finally, I believe that deviations from guideline-recommended care should be justified, and outcomes should be assessed to either refine the guideline or reinforce the need to follow the guideline as developed.

Acknowledgments

Potential conflicts of interest. A.R.K. has no relevant conflicts of interest.

  • ©2015 by the North Carolina Institute of Medicine and The Duke Endowment. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Lion KC,
    2. Raphael JL
    Partnering health disparities research with quality improvement science in pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2015;135(2):354-361.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Codish S,
    2. Shiffman RN
    A model of ambuity and vagueness in clinical practice guideline recommendations. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2005;146-150.
  3. ↵
    1. Institute of Medicine Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines
    Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
  4. ↵
    1. Cabana MD,
    2. Rand CS,
    3. Powe NR, et al.
    Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999;282(15):1458-1465.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Green SM,
    2. Reid RJ,
    3. Larson EB
    Implementing the learning health system: from concept to action. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(3):207-210.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Farias M,
    2. Friedman KG,
    3. Powell AJ, et al.
    Dynamic evolution of practice guidelines: analysis of deviations from assessment and management plans. Pediatrics. 2012;130(1):93-98.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

North Carolina Medical Journal: 76 (4)
North Carolina Medical Journal
Vol. 76, Issue 4
September-October 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on North Carolina Medical Journal.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Implementing Guidelines One Patient at a Time
(Your Name) has sent you a message from North Carolina Medical Journal
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the North Carolina Medical Journal web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
18 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Implementing Guidelines One Patient at a Time
Alex R. Kemper
North Carolina Medical Journal Sep 2015, 76 (4) 267-268; DOI: 10.18043/ncm.76.4.267

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Implementing Guidelines One Patient at a Time
Alex R. Kemper
North Carolina Medical Journal Sep 2015, 76 (4) 267-268; DOI: 10.18043/ncm.76.4.267
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • What, How, and Why
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Policy Forum

  • Breaking the Cycle
  • Breaking the Cycle
  • From Here to There—With a Spring in Our Steps
Show more Policy Forum

INVITED COMMENTARIES AND SIDEBARS

  • Sidebar: Community-driven Approaches to Preventing Overdoses Among American Indians
  • Sidebar: History Shaping the Future: How History Influences Health in North Carolina Native American Communities
  • Sidebar: Impact of Racial Misclassification of Health Data on American Indians in North Carolina
Show more INVITED COMMENTARIES AND SIDEBARS

Similar Articles

About & Contact

  • About the NCMJ
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback

Info for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers

Articles & Alerts

  • Archive
  • Current Issue
  • Get Alerts
  • Upcoming Articles

Additional Content

  • Current NCIOM Task Forces
  • NC Health Data & Resources
  • NCIOM Blog
North Carolina Medical Journal

ISSN: 0029-2559

© 2022 North Carolina Medical Journal

Powered by HighWire