Title |
Involving general practice trainees in clinical practice guideline adaptation
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Education, June 2018
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12909-018-1252-9 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Nicolas Delvaux, Martine Goossens, Paul Van Royen, Stijn Van de Velde, Robert Vanderstichele, Hanne Cloetens, Jan Vanschoenbeek, Bert Aertgeerts |
Abstract |
It is unclear whether it is feasible to involve residents in guideline development or adaptation. We designed a multifaceted training program that combines training sessions, a handbook and a documentation tool to assist general practice (GP)-trainees in the adaptation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The aim of this study is to adapt a database of CPGs by involving GP-trainees and to build evidence-based practice (EBP) learning capacity. We assessed each adaptation process and surveyed all GP-trainees who enrolled in our training program on their views on the program. They were asked to formulate an overall rating for the training and were asked to rate individual aspects of the training program (the training sessions, the handbook and the documentation tool). To date, 122 GP-trainees followed the training and have adapted 60 different CPGs. Overall quality of their work was good. Based on an assessment of the content of the documentation tool, 24 (40%) adapted CPGs rated as good quality and 30 (50%) rated as moderate quality. Only 3 adapted CPGs (5%) were evaluated as being of poor quality. 51 (42%) GP-trainees completed the survey on user satisfaction. 98% (50) of the GP-trainees found the training to be of good overall quality. 86% of the GP-trainees were satisfied with the handbook but satisfaction was lowest for the documentation tool (47% satisfied). It is possible to engage GP-trainees in CPG adaptation using a formal process when provided with training, feedback and documentation tools. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Spain | 1 | 33% |
Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 4 | 15% |
Other | 3 | 12% |
Librarian | 2 | 8% |
Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
Other | 4 | 15% |
Unknown | 10 | 38% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 31% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 15% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 8% |
Psychology | 1 | 4% |
Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 10 | 38% |