Week 4

REVISED VERSION NEEDS SOME TWEAKING

Part 1

Governments around the world are aiming to improve healthcare and optimize outcomes through initiatives that accelerate the systematic integration of clinical care based on the best evidence. Therefore, it is not surprising to see entire programs dedicated to this endeavor hence the development of classes like this to educate and empower students . However, the problem is that clinical practice variations continue to persist (Melnyk, B. M. & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2019)..

Name The Guideline

The guideline I chose is the American Heart Association’s “Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.” PLS REVIEW (SO THIS ONE WE NEED TO GET THE ARTICLE

Name The Resource (Database) Which Housed This Practice Guideline

The resource housed in this practice guideline is the American Heart Association’s website ( https://www.heart.org/).- this website is incorrect FOR THE GUIDELINE ABOVE WE NEED TO LIST THE DATABASE

State the strength of the guideline based on the validity and reliability of its recommendation.

The guideline’s strength is based on its recommendations’ validity and reliability. The evidence-based suggestions are backed by consensus amongst experts. This makes the guideline a reliable and trustworthy source of information for clinicians. (This Needs more explaining and the polit book is not applicable here since we are talking about the article we found.)SO THIS IS THE OLD ONE BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE ARTICLE WE CAN EXPLAIN THE STRENGTH BETTER

Answer all of the questions listed in Box 8.4 Rapid Critical Appraisal checklist on page 245 of the Melnyk text to evaluate the attributes of the guideline.

Who were the guideline developers?

The guideline developers were representatives of key stakeholders in this specialty, including clinicians, researchers, and patient organizations.(WE CAN EXPLAIN OR LIST THE DEVELOPERS

Was the developer representative of key stakeholders in this specialty (interdisciplinary)?

The developer was undoubtedly representing the key stakeholders in this specialty. They could do so by taking into account each group’s different perspectives and needs and then incorporating them into the final product.(REPHRASE)

Who funded the guideline development?

The American Heart Association funded the guideline development to provide updated, evidence-based recommendations for preventing cardiovascular disease (White et al., 2019)WE NEED TO DELETE THEH WHITE ET AL. 2019 .this is the book translating into evidence if we are going to use the book, we need a quote that supports your funding response.

Were any of the guideline developers funded researchers of the reviewed studies?

No one involved in creating the guidelines paid for the heart disease prevention research.

Did the team have a valid development strategy?

The team did use an appropriate methodology for development. First, they defined what the user needed to do with the app. Second, they decided which features were most important to include. Third, they mocked up a basic prototype. Fourth, they iteratively built and tested the app. Fifth, they released it to users.(GREAT POINT)

Was an explicit, sensible, and impartial process used to identify, select, and combine evidence?

Evidence was gathered using a transparent, reasonable, and unbiased procedure.(WE CAN EXPAND MORE ON THIS LIKE HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE RECURUITED ETC

Did developers carry out a comprehensive, reproducible literature review within the past 12 months of its publication/ revision?

Not less than a year after its publication or most recent modification did the designers conduct a thorough, reproducible literature survey.

Were all important options and outcomes considered?

Yes, all significant selections and results were considered. (WE CAN EXPAND AND BE MORE DETAILED HERE BY LISTINGSOME THINGS DONE

Is each recommendation in the guideline tagged by the level/strength of evidence on which it is based and linked with the scientific evidence?

Yes, every recommendation in the guide was marked by the level/strength of indication.(EXPLAINING NEEDED)WHAT LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Do the guidelines make explicit recommendations (reflecting judgments about outcomes)?

The guidelines do include explanations for each recommendation(Explaining needed in regards to the recommendations and its outcomes from the practicegudieline).

Has the guideline been subjected to peer review and testing?

The recommendations have been tested and reviewed by experts in the field((Explaining needed and How did they do that.

Is the intent of use provided?

(THIS WHOLE ARENEEDS REVAMPING SINCE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CARDIOVASCULAR GUIDELINE )Use intends to find a particular item in a store. The user enters the name or SKU of the item they are looking for, and the AI gives them directions to where it is located. This is not what the article you picked is about the guideline or article is about Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care) so store and sku and items does not fit here unsure if its related.

Are the recommendations clinically relevant?

It is important to note that the therapeutic relevance of the suggestions is ensured by their basis in medical evidence(EXPLAINING HOW LIKE HOW IS IT RELEVANT WE NEED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE GUIDELINE HELPS ).

Will the recommendations help me in caring for my patients?

Clinicians will benefit greatly from the suggestions for improving patient care. Clinicians can make a significant difference in their patients’ lives by suggesting ways to enhance care.(need from tHe article what this would do?) IF WE ARE STICKING TO THEH CARDIO STUFF

Are the recommendations practical/ feasible? Are resources available?

The suggestions are reasonable and doable, and the means to implement them exist(it would help to explain more here ALSO).

Are the recommendations a major variation from current practice? Can the outcomes be measured through standard care?

The rules do not deviate drastically from usual practice, and the outcomes can be evaluated using these metrics (Moran et al., 2019). WE NEED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE CARDIO GUIDELINE CAN BE MEASURED WE CAN DELETE MORAN ETAL., IF WE DO NOT NEED ITunsure where this quote was from or it does not need ciation.

Part 2. After listening to the AGREE II overview tutorial and tutorial/ practice, note the necessary steps to evaluate a guideline. Find one article which the authors used the AGREE II tool to evaluate a practice guideline.

The AGREE II, is an internationally recognized standard instrument for evaluating the methodological quality of guidelines, provides framework guidance for the quality appraisal of various Clinical Practice Guidelines-(CPGs)(Zhou et al., 2021). So in searching for an article I utilized the two search words and found one that peaked my interest. The World Health Organization has indicated that new cancer cases are expected to exceed 29 million in 2040, leading to 16 million expected cancer-related deaths in 2040 .Malnutrition, which is the most common complication of cancer, can negatively affect treatment effects and has become one of the leading causes of death in cancer patients(Zhou et al., 2021)

What is the citation of the article?

The article YOU chose is Cassidy, C.E., Harrison, M.B., Godfrey, C. et al (2021). Use and effects of implementation strategies for practice guidelines in nursing: a systematic review. Implementation Sci 16, 102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01165-5 (This does not list an actual guideline with the tool. We can use it as a support for our points though. FOR THIS ONE I ADDED THE ARTICLE BELOW

Clinical practice guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients: a systematic quality appraisal using the AGREE II instrument.

Zhou, H., Deng, L., Wang, T., Chen, J., Jiang, S., Yang, L., Liu, F., Weng, M., Hu, J., & Tan, J. (2021). Clinical practice guidelines for the nutritional risk screening and assessment of cancer patients: A systematic quality appraisal using the AGREE II instrument. Supportive Care in Cancer, 29(6), 2885-2893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06094-z

What were the findings and conclusion? FOR THIS WE CAN USE THE CASSIDY ARTICLE AS SUPPORT SO I LEFT IT IN

The findings of this article were that implementation strategies for practice guidelines in nursing can be effective in improving nursing practice, but that more research is needed to determine the most effective strategies (Cassidy et al., 2021). The authors conclude that a variety of implementation strategies are available to nursing organizations, and that more research is needed to determine which strategies are most effective in improving nursing practice.

The findings is that the quality of the current practicing guidelines(CPGS) regarding nutritional risk screening and assessment in the cancer population is still suboptimal due to its methodological limitations. Further improvements are needed to develop high-quality cancer-specific guidelines in an evidence-based manner by strictly following the AGREE II assessment criteria. Although two relatively high-quality guidelines were identified in this review, translations, validations, and cultural adaptations should still be well conducted before their implementation in other countries with different contexts(Zhou et al., 2021).

(The conclusion of this article was that despite having these two strongly recommended guidelines and the fact that they were developed within the American and European contexts, it still requires translation, validation, and cultural adaptation before they are implemented in other countries or healthcare contexts to improve their effectiveness and sensitivity for local cancer patients(Zhou et al., 2021)