The problem of deciding which health care technologies to evaluate is urgent. With new technologies proliferating alongside steadily increasing health care costs, it is critical to discriminate among technologies to direct tests and treatments at those who can benefit the most. Given the vast number of clinical problems and technologies to be evaluated, the many months of work required to study just one problem, and the relatively few clinicians with highly developed analytic skills, institutions must set priorities for assessment. This book sets forth criteria and a method that can be used by public agencies such as the Office of Health Technology Assessment (in the U.S. Public Health Service) and by any private organization conducting such work to decide which technologies to assess or reassess.
This book examines methods for selecting topics and setting priorities for clinical practice guideline development and implementation. Clinical practice guidelines are "systematically defined statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances." In its assessment of processes for setting priorities, the committee considers the principles of consistency with the organization's mission, implementation feasibility, efficiency, utility of the results to the organization, and openness and defensibilityâ€"a principle that is especially important to public agencies. The volume also examines the implications of health care restructuring for priority setting and topic selection, including the link between national and local approaches to guidelines development.
There is currently heightened interest in optimizing health care through the generation of new knowledge on the effectiveness of health care services. The United States must substantially strengthen its capacity for assessing evidence on what is known and not known about "what works" in health care. Even the most sophisticated clinicians and consumers struggle to learn which care is appropriate and under what circumstances. Knowing What Works in Health Care looks at the three fundamental health care issues in the United States-setting priorities for evidence assessment, assessing evidence (systematic review), and developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines-and how each of these contributes to the end goal of effective, practical health care systems. This book provides an overall vision and roadmap for improving how the nation uses scientific evidence to identify the most effective clinical services. Knowing What Works in Health Care gives private and public sector firms, consumers, health care professionals, benefit administrators, and others the authoritative, independent information required for making essential informed health care decisions.
The new field of toxicogenomics presents a potentially powerful set of tools to better understand the health effects of exposures to toxicants in the environment. At the request of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Research Council assembled a committee to identify the benefits of toxicogenomics, the challenges to achieving them, and potential approaches to overcoming such challenges. The report concludes that realizing the potential of toxicogenomics to improve public health decisions will require a concerted effort to generate data, make use of existing data, and study data in new waysâ€"an effort requiring funding, interagency coordination, and data management strategies.
The problem of deciding which health care technologies to evaluate is urgent. With new technologies proliferating alongside steadily increasing health care costs, it is critical to discriminate among technologies to direct tests and treatments at those who can benefit the most. Given the vast number of clinical problems and technologies to be evaluated, the many months of work required to study just one problem, and the relatively few clinicians with highly developed analytic skills, institutions must set priorities for assessment. This book sets forth criteria and a method that can be used by public agencies such as the Office of Health Technology Assessment (in the U.S. Public Health Service) and by any private organization conducting such work to decide which technologies to assess or reassess.
In 2007, the National Research Council envisioned a new paradigm in which biologically important perturbations in key toxicity pathways would be evaluated with new methods in molecular biology, bioinformatics, computational toxicology, and a comprehensive array of in vitro tests based primarily on human biology. Although some considered the vision too optimistic with respect to the promise of the new science, no one can deny that a revolution in toxicity testing is under way. New approaches are being developed, and data are being generated. As a result, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expects a large influx of data that will need to be evaluated. EPA also is faced with tens of thousands of chemicals on which toxicity information is incomplete and emerging chemicals and substances that will need risk assessment and possible regulation. Therefore, the agency asked the National Research Council to convene a symposium to stimulate discussion on the application of the new approaches and data in risk assessment. The symposium was held on May 11-13, 2009, in Washington, DC, and included presentations and discussion sessions on pathway-based approaches for hazard identification, applications of new approaches to mode-of-action analyses, the challenges to and opportunities for risk assessment in the changing paradigm, and future directions.
One in seven people in England suffer from hearing loss of some kind, and the advent of digital hearing aids proved of great benefit to many patients. The Modernising Hearing Aid Services (MHAS) programme to improve audiology services, introduced in 2000, aimed to provide NHS patients with digital hearing aids. But the demand from people upgrading from older models was not predicted, and this led to very long waiting lists and times. The Committee regards the Government's new framework for audiology, "Improving access to audiology services in England" (Dept of Health, March 2007, http://www.18weeks.nhs.uk/public/default.aspx?main=true&load=ArticleViewer&ArticleId=570) as primarily reiterating previous announcements. A main concern is that audiology is kept outside the 18-week referral to treatment target that applies to consultant-led services, which compounds the waiting time problem. There is a need to increase capacity, and the Department of Health should undertake an examination of the medium- and long-term demand for digital hearing aids. The Committee notes the variation in practice in NHS audiology departments, and believes many could operate more efficiently. They should examine the skill mix and levels of training or experience necessary, and look at more flexible approaches to service provision. The report also comments on the involvement of the private sector to provide additional capacity, and the entry into the market of others such as opticians. The private services need to be monitored and the quality of care assessed on the same basis as that used for the NHS.
Advances in medical, biomedical and health services research have reduced the level of uncertainty in clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) complement this progress by establishing standards of care backed by strong scientific evidence. CPGs are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care. These statements are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and costs of alternative care options. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust examines the current state of clinical practice guidelines and how they can be improved to enhance healthcare quality and patient outcomes. Clinical practice guidelines now are ubiquitous in our healthcare system. The Guidelines International Network (GIN) database currently lists more than 3,700 guidelines from 39 countries. Developing guidelines presents a number of challenges including lack of transparent methodological practices, difficulty reconciling conflicting guidelines, and conflicts of interest. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust explores questions surrounding the quality of CPG development processes and the establishment of standards. It proposes eight standards for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines emphasizing transparency; management of conflict of interest ; systematic review-guideline development intersection; establishing evidence foundations for and rating strength of guideline recommendations; articulation of recommendations; external review; and updating. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust shows how clinical practice guidelines can enhance clinician and patient decision-making by translating complex scientific research findings into recommendations for clinical practice that are relevant to the individual patient encounter, instead of implementing a one size fits all approach to patient care. This book contains information directly related to the work of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), as well as various Congressional staff and policymakers. It is a vital resource for medical specialty societies, disease advocacy groups, health professionals, private and international organizations that develop or use clinical practice guidelines, consumers, clinicians, and payers.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.