The Leading Business Education Network for Doctors, Financial Advisors and Health Industry Consultants

About the Institute for Clinical Systems Integration [ICSI] 

By Brent A. Metfessel MD, CMP™

The Institute for Clinical Systems Integration (ICSI) is a strong proponent of the value of evidence-based clinical guidelines, and cites the following objections that make their implementation and acceptance more difficult.

The Issues

These issues generally apply to technology assessments as well:

• Guidelines are a legal hazard:  There is a fear that following a guideline that turns out to be wrong increases the risk of litigation.  Good guidelines, however, are evidence-based and not opinion-based drivers of care.  Furthermore, once a review of the literature takes place and is synthesized into a preliminary guideline, multi-specialty physician focus groups review the guidelines prior to finalization.  The strength of evidence supporting each conclusion is usually stated, highlighting areas of remaining scientific uncertainty.  “Evidence hierarchies” are often used as aids to grading recommendations, with meta-analysis, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials being at or near the top of the hierarchy in strength, with narrative reviews, case reports, and medical opinion pieces being considered the weakest forms of evidence.  This provides additional checks and balances to guideline development.
• Guidelines are cookbook medicine:  Guidelines are just that – guidelines.  Each patient should be provided treatment according to his/her individual needs.  Evidence-based clinical guidelines are based on extensive reviews of the literature and are applicable to the vast majority of cases for a particular clinical condition but not necessarily all cases.  In the case of practice pattern evaluation or profiling, comparisons of such patterns to medical guidelines can help identify overall systematic variations from the norm rather than variations due to particular patients with special needs.
• Guidelines do not work:  When used as the sole basis for practice improvement, this statement contains some truth. However, when incorporated into a systematic continuous quality improvement approach, they have been shown to improve practice patterns and reduce variation.
• Physicians will not use guidelines:  Once physicians know that the guidelines are based on a sound review of the medical literature, practitioner buy-in greatly increases.  In addition, clinicians need to realize that clinical guidelines are only one part of the total treatment picture since a team approach to patient care is becoming the norm.
• Guidelines need validation through actual outcomes data:  This is correct when based on a continuous quality improvement approach, but is incorrect if outcomes are based on individual events.  Local implementation of guidelines can be compared to outcomes data one or two years after implementation.  Depending on the actual level of practice pattern improvement, minor alterations can be made to the guidelines to reflect local needs.

Guideline Adaptation

National guidelines in some cases may need adaptation to local patient needs and concerns.  For example, a practice in a major metropolitan area where specialty care is readily available differs in major ways from a rural practice which is based more on primary care.  Practices where many patients are poor or on public assistance also differs from practices in affluent areas.  When used as basic guides to appropriate practice, however, clinical guidelines can significantly decrease practice variation.

Evidence Based Medicine

With the recent emphasis on evidence-based medicine and on decreasing the time lag between evidence publication and its effect on actual patient care, a number of agencies have added clinical guideline and technology assessment development to their task lists.  Such agencies include specialty societies such as the American College of Cardiology (ACC), private companies and non-profit organizations, governmental bodies such as the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ), and MCOs that review the scientific evidence for the purpose of determining coverage policy.

Assessment

MCOs may post medical coverage policies on the Web for physicians to access, and these generally contain narrative justifications (often with evidence grading) in terms of why a particular procedure or diagnostic test may or may not be covered based on level of efficacy shown in scientific studies.  It is important to note that for many high-tech or new procedures, different MCOs may have somewhat different coverage policies based on variation in terms of interpreting the evidence, especially in areas where the science is less certain.

Conclusion

Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

***

Invite Dr. Marcinko

***

Filed under: Book Reviews, Career Development, Ethics, iMBA, Inc., Practice Management, Recommended Books | Tagged: Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, American College of Cardiology, Brent A. Metfessel MD, Business of Medical Practice, cookbook medicine, Evidence-Based Clinical Medicine, Institute for Clinical Systems Integration, www.BusinessofMedicalPractice.com |