Implementation of Evidence-Based Tobacco Use Cessation Guidelines in Managed Care Organizations

Background: Although managed care organizations (MCOs) may be optimal settings for implementing tobacco use cessation clinical guidelines, such guidelines remain poorly implemented in many MCO settings.Purpose: We examined issues related to the implementation of guidelines in MCOs, to provide examples of studies that have addressed issues related to guideline implementation and to suggest ways behavioral medicine researchers can play a role in examining issues of how guidelines can be better implemented.Methods: Surveys of clinical guideline implementation, studies from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation addressing tobacco use cessation in a managed care database, selected to illustrate issues related to system-wide implementation.Results: Surveys show that effective tobacco use cessation interventions remain underutilized in MCOs. A few studies have evaluated and shown the benefit of insurance coverage for tobacco use and dependence treatments, clinician reimbursement and leadership incentives, practice feedback, and leveraging administrative data to create tobacco use tracking systems. The studies also point to the need for large-scale, multidisciplinary, methodologically rigorous studies that allow one to isolate the effects of promising strategies as well as to explore synergistic effects as different system changes are combined.Conclusions: Tobacco use cessation guidelines need to be better implemented in MCOs. Behavioral medicine research needs to move beyond treatment efficacy and effectiveness studies to focus on rigorous evaluations of these and other strategies to enhance guideline implementation and dissemination. This research was supported by grants from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (Taylor) and from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Taylor and Curry).     

Best evidence in anesthetic practice

Question  

In postoperative non-ventilated patients, what is the efficacy and harm of pharmacological interventions in treating postoperative shivering?     

Rechtsprechung aktuell

Ohne Zusammenfassung     

Endoscopically controlled erbium:YAG goniopuncture versus trabeculectomy: effect on intraocular pressure in combination with cataract surgery

PURPOSE:. To compare the efficacy of endoscopic erbium:YAG laser goniopuncture in glaucoma treatment to trabeculectomy, both methods as adjuncts to cataract surgery. METHODS:. Fifty-nine eyes of 59 glaucoma patients with coexistent cataract were treated by phacoemulsification and endoscopic Er:YAG goniopuncture in a combined fashion. The primary study endpoints were intraocular pressure (IOP), number of antiglaucomatous drugs, postoperative complications, hospitalisation time and visual acuity at 1 year after surgery. To date, 24 eyes have finished the 1-year follow-up. This prospective treatment arm was compared to a retrospective inclusion-matched control group treated by trabeculectomy and cataract surgery in a single procedure. RESULTS:. In the laser-treated group, the mean IOP dropped by 30% from 23.4+/-3.7 mmHg to 16.3+/-6 mmHg ( P<0.0001) after 12 months. Without reoperation, treatment was successful in 71% of these eyes. In the control group, the IOP decreased by 33.5% from 22.7+/-3.3 mmHg to 15.1+/-3.8 mmHg ( P<0.0001). The success rate without reoperation was 46%. The number of antiglaucomatous drugs needed decreased from 1.48+/-0.95 to 0.48+/-0.7 ( P<0.0001) in the laser-treated group and from 2.0+/-0.9 to 0.39+/-0.6 ( P<0.0001) in the control group. Postoperative complications were found more frequently in the control group ( P<0.0001). Hospitalisation was shorter in the laser group ( P<0.0001). Postoperative visual acuity was lower in the control group ( P=0.004). CONCLUSION:. Combined Er:YAG goniopuncture and cataract surgery lowers the IOP to an extent comparable to combined trabeculectomy and cataract surgery. Due to fewer postoperative complications, Er:YAG goniopuncture seems to be superior to standard fistulation surgery as the primary approach within the first year.     

Should every patient undergo cardiac catheterization after myocardial infarction?

During the past few decades, management of patients with myocardial infarction has dramatically evolved. High-risk patients are now identified by a variety of noninvasive tests, and aggressive use of reperfusion strategies has improved clinical outcomes. Despite the benefits of reperfusion, only a few patients are eligible to receive thrombolytic therapy. Mortality rates among patients excluded from thrombolytic trials (15% to 20%) have been far greater than those eligible for treatment (3% to 10%). Because most deaths occur within the first few days of infarction, interventions designed to reduce mortality should be performed acutely. Immediate catheterization allows identification of high-risk anatomy that may benefit from surgery and allows coronary angioplasty to be performed as a reperfusion strategy (when appropriate). Furthermore, catheterization allows documentation of ejection fraction, vessel patency, number of diseased vessels, and residual stenosis, all of which have been predictive of prognosis. Conversely, frequently repeated noninvasive diagnostic tests are associated with increased cost, are generally performed in low-risk patients, and 60% to 80% of patients with myocardial infarction ultimately require catheterization anyway. It is possible that early catheterization and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty when indicated may effectively risk stratify patients (eliminating the need for noninvasive testing), may reduce morbidity and mortality, and shorten the length of hospital stay.