In an era of evidence-based medicine, the world is awash in guidelines for appropriate care. How confident can patients and providers be that once a guideline is promulgated, someone is ensuring that it stays consistent with current scientific findings. Not very, according to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. (JAMA Article) For a guideline to be up-to-date, someone needs to be tracking the relevant research and other factors affecting it, such as changes in outcomes being looked at; then their needs to be a process to actually revise the guideline, which can be quite time-consuming; and finally, the new guideline needs to be communicated to practitioners. The authors studied the class one recommendations from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association published between 1998 and 2007 and revised between 2006 and 2013. Class one recommendations are the most definitive statement in regard to care, basically saying that this should be done. From the initial recommendation, they considered one of four outcomes–the guideline was fully retained, the guideline was downgraded from class one to a less mandatory status, the guideline was reversed or the recommendation was omitted in subsequent versions of the guideline. The researchers identified 619 class one recommendations in 11 guidelines. Of these 495 were retained in subsequent versions of the guideline, 57 were downgraded or reversed and 67 were omitted. About 20% of recommendations had some change. As might be expected, those guidelines with the greatest level of strength of evidence initially, were least likely to see a change in status in revisions. An accompanying editorial notes that the process for reviewing and revising guidelines can take years. Given that 20% of recommendations, at least in cardiology, were subject to a change, that seems to be too long. As the editorial suggests, some method is needed for more quickly identifying potential changes and getting agreement to make the revision. Otherwise providers may be unaware of potential issues in how they are treating patients. At a minimum a widespread method of alerting doctors that there may be reason to reconsider a particular recommendation would be advisable.
✅ Subscribe via Email
About this Blog
The Healthy Skeptic is a website about the health care system, and is written by Kevin Roche, who has many years of experience working in the health industry. Mr. Roche is available to assist health care companies through consulting arrangements through Roche Consulting, LLC and may be reached at [email protected].
Healthy Skeptic Podcast
This is an outstanding report on total global drug spending and trends, with projections out to 2025. It helps you understand this important area of health care, which does much...
June 1, 2021
MedPAC 2019 Report to Congress
June 18, 2019
Two health care firms owned by private equity firms are merging in a transaction supposedly valued at $3 billion. HealthComp administers self-funded plans for employers and other groups and Virgin...
September 27, 2023
NextGen, an electronic medical records firm, is being put out of its public company misery, as a PE firm will pay $1.6 billion for the one-time high-flier.
September 7, 2023
A number of companies which attracted large financing rounds during the epidemic have imploded when reality set in. The latest is Cano Health, which is a little surprising since it...
August 15, 2023
Access ACO Care Management Chronic Disease Comparative Effectiveness Consumer Directed Health Consumers Devices Disease Management Drugs EHRs Elder Care End-of-Life Care FDA Financings Genomics Government Health Care Costs Health Care Quality Health Care Reform Health Insurance Health Insurance Exchange HIT HomeCare Hospital Hospital Readmissions Legislation M&A Malpractice Meaningful Use Medicaid Medical Care Medicare Medicare Advantage Mobile Pay For Performance Pharmaceutical Physicians Providers Regulation Repealing Reform Telehealth Telemedicine Wellness and Prevention Workplace