Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
From Evidence to EMS Practice: Building the National Model. Eddy Lang, MD, CFPC (EM), CSPQ SMBD-Jewish General Hospital, McGill University Montreal, Canada . Overview. Research evidence versus consensus/expert based CPGs Avoiding GOBSAT methodology Unique EMS aspects to consider
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Eddy Lang, MD, CFPC (EM), CSPQ
SMBD-Jewish General Hospital,
Systematically developed statements or recommendations to assist practitioner about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances.
Institute of Medicine (1992). Guidelines for clinical practice: from development to use.
Research and Evaluation
Six domains – 23 items
1. Scope & purpose (3)
2. Stakeholder involvement (4)
3. Rigour of development (7)
4. Clarity & presentation (4)
5. Applicability (3)
6. Editorial independence (2)
1. The overall objective(s) of the guideline is(are) specifically described.
2. The clinical question(s) covered by the guideline is(are) specifically described.
3. The patients to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described.
4. The guideline development group includes individuals from all the relevant professional groups.
5. The patients’ views and preferences have been sought.
6. The target users of the guideline are clearly defined.
7. The guideline has been piloted among target users.
8. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence.
9. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described.
10. The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described.
11. The health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations.
12. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence.
13. The guideline has been externally reviewed by an expert panel prior to publication.
14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided.
15. The recommendations are specific and unambiguous.
16. The different options for management of the condition are clearly presented.
17. Key recommendations are easily identifiable.
18. The guideline is supported with tools for application.
19. The potential organisational barriers in applying the guideline have been discussed.
20. The potential costs implications of applying the recommendations have been considered.
21. The guideline presents key review criteria for monitoring and/or audit purposes.
22. The guideline is editorially independent from the funding body.
23. Conflicts of interest of guideline development members have been recorded.
Development and Evaluation