Clinician report cards and the limits of evidence-based patient choice

2009 ◽  
pp. 27-40
Author(s):  
Michael Parker
Keyword(s):  
Patient Choice ◽  
Report Cards ◽  
Evidence Based

scholarly journals Breast implants: evidence based patient choice and litigation

BMJ ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 318 (7181) ◽  
pp. 414-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
J A M. Gray
Keyword(s):  
Breast Implants ◽  
Patient Choice ◽  
Evidence Based

Quality prescribing in early psychosis: key pharmacotherapy principles

2021 ◽  
pp. 103985622110546
Author(s):  
James G Scott ◽  
Gemma McKeon ◽  
Eva Malacova ◽  
Jackie Curtis ◽  
Bjorn Burgher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Choice ◽  
Early Psychosis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Prescribing Practices ◽  
Metabolic Monitoring ◽  
Risk Benefit Assessment ◽  
Medication Risk ◽  
Long Acting ◽  
Informed Patient ◽  
Medication Choice

Objective: To present a practical, easy-to-implement clinical framework designed to support evidence-based quality prescribing for people with early psychosis. Method: Identification and explanation of key principles relating to evidence-based pharmacotherapy for people with early psychosis. These were derived from the literature, practice guidelines and clinical experience. Results: Key principles include (1) medication choice informed by adverse effects; (2) metabolic monitoring at baseline and at regular intervals; (3) comprehensive and regular medication risk–benefit assessment and psychoeducation; (4) early consideration of long-acting injectable formulations (preferably driven by informed patient choice); (5) identification and treatment of comorbid mood disorders and (6) early consideration of clozapine when treatment refractory criteria are met. Conclusions: Current prescribing practices do not align with the well-established evidence for quality pharmacotherapy in early psychosis. Adopting evidence-based prescribing practices for people with early psychosis will improve outcomes.

scholarly journals Canadian Child Safety Report Card: a comparison of injury prevention practices across provinces

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 252-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liraz Fridman ◽  
Jessica L Fraser-Thomas ◽  
Ian Pike ◽  
Alison K Macpherson
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Injury Prevention ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Hospitalisation Rate ◽  
Report Cards ◽  
Child Safety ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Prevention Policies ◽  
Over Time

BackgroundInjury prevention report cards that raise awareness about the preventability of childhood injuries have been published by the European Child Safety Alliance and the WHO. These report cards highlight the variance in injury prevention practices around the world. Policymakers and stakeholders have identified research evidence as an important enabler to the enactment of injury legislation. In Canada, there is currently no childhood injury report card that ranks provinces on injury rates or evidence-based prevention policies.MethodsThree key measures, with five metrics, were used to compare provinces on childhood injury prevention rates and strategies, including morbidity, mortality and policy indicators over time (2006–2012). Nine provinces were ranked on five metrics: (1) population-based hospitalisation rate/100 000; (2) per cent change in hospitalisation rate/100 000; (3) population-based mortality rate/100 000; (4) per cent change in mortality rate/100 000; (5) evidence-based policy assessment.ResultsOf the nine provinces analysed, British Columbia ranked highest in Canada and Saskatchewan lowest. British Columbia had a morbidity and mortality rate that was close to the Canadian average and decreased over the study period. British Columbia also had a number of injury prevention policies and legislation in place that followed best practice guidelines. Saskatchewan had a higher rate of injury hospitalisation and death; however, Saskatchewan’s rate decreased over time. Saskatchewan had a number of prevention policies in place but had not enacted bicycle helmet legislation.ConclusionsFuture preventative efforts should focus on harmonising policies across all provinces in Canada that reflect evidence-based best practices.

Use of a Pan-Canadian indicator to measure treatment rates relative to evidence-based guidelines for rectal cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 177-177
Author(s):  
Tonia Forte ◽  
Julie Klein-Geltink ◽  
Rami Rahal ◽  
Gina Lockwood ◽  
Heather E. Bryant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Administrative Data ◽  
Chart Review ◽  
Radiation Treatment ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Cancer Registries ◽  
Patient Choice ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Guidelines

177 Background: As part of the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s (CPAC) System Performance initiative, indicators measuring treatment practice patterns across the country are now available, offering the ability to compare against evidence-based guidelines. We report on the percentage of patients with stage II and III rectal cancer receiving pre-operative radiation treatment (RT) based on an analysis of Canadian administrative data. A retrospective chart review was conducted to examine reasons for non-treatment with RT, set performance targets, and inform quality improvements. Methods: Data on the percentage of stage II and III rectal cancer cases receiving preoperative RT were obtained from five provincial cancer registries using a standardized methodology for 2,854 cases diagnosed between 2007 and 2008, with 2009 data soon to be available. A retrospective chart review was conducted in five provinces on a random sample of 383 patients diagnosed in 2008 to examine reasons for non-referral and non-treatment. Results: Based on administrative data, an average of 45% of cases received RT preceding surgical resection for stage II or III rectal cancer, ranging from 36% to 48% across provinces. Preoperative RT rates were similar for men and women, but were lower in older patients. From 2007 to 2008, the percentage of patients receiving pre-operative RT increased in all provinces. Results from the chart review showed that, of those who did not receive preoperative RT, 33% were not referred by a surgeon to an oncologist. The most common documented reasons for non-referral were co-morbidities (26%) and patient choice (7%). Among patients referred to an oncologist, 42% were treated with preoperative RT, 30% were treated with post-operative RT and 28% received no treatment. Among those receiving no treatment, 29% were seen only by a medical oncologist, and 18% were not treated due to patient choice. Conclusions: Findings are being used to develop national targets for treatment rates and, working with national oncologist associations, to develop quality improvement strategies, including patient education efforts to promote informed decisions on treatment options.

scholarly journals Evidence-based patient choice: inevitable or impossible?

2002 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 314-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Holmes
Keyword(s):  
Patient Choice ◽  
Evidence Based

scholarly journals Is evidence based patient choice feasible?

BMJ ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 329 (7456) ◽  
pp. 39.1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Cantillon
Keyword(s):  
Patient Choice ◽  
Evidence Based
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document