ContextDespite wide promulgation, clinical practice guidelines have had limited
effect on changing physician behavior. Little is known about the process and
factors involved in changing physician practices in response to guidelines.ObjectiveTo review barriers to physician adherence to clinical practice guidelines.Data SourcesWe searched the MEDLINE, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC),
and HealthSTAR databases (January 1966 to January 1998); bibliographies; textbooks
on health behavior or public health; and references supplied by experts to
find English-language article titles that describe barriers to guideline adherence.Study SelectionOf 5658 articles initially identified, we selected 76 published studies
describing at least 1 barrier to adherence to clinical practice guidelines,
practice parameters, clinical policies, or national consensus statements.
One investigator screened titles to identify candidate articles, then 2 investigators
independently reviewed the texts to exclude articles that did not match the
criteria. Differences were resolved by consensus with a third investigator.Data ExtractionTwo investigators organized barriers to adherence into a framework according
to their effect on physician knowledge, attitudes, or behavior. This organization
was validated by 3 additional investigators.Data SynthesisThe 76 articles included 120 different surveys investigating 293 potential
barriers to physician guideline adherence, including awareness (n = 46), familiarity
(n = 31), agreement (n = 33), self-efficacy (n = 19), outcome expectancy (n
= 8), ability to overcome the inertia of previous practice (n = 14), and absence
of external barriers to perform recommendations (n = 34). The majority of
surveys (70 [58%] of 120) examined only 1 type of barrier.ConclusionsStudies on improving physician guideline adherence may not be generalizable,
since barriers in one setting may not be present in another. Our review offers
a differential diagnosis for why physicians do not follow practice guidelines,
as well as a rational approach toward improving guideline adherence and a
framework for future research.

https://www.ghdonline.org/uploads/Cabana_1999_JAMA_-_Why_dont_physicians_follow_clinical_practice_guidelines_-_a_framework_for_improvement.pdf

Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines?: A Framework for Improvement

Background Audit and feedback continues to be widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice. It appears logical that healthcare professionals would be prompted to modify their practice if given feedback that their clinical practice was inconsistent with that of their peers or accepted guidelines. Yet, audit and feedback has not been found to be consistently effective. Objectives To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's register up to January 2001. This was supplemented with searches of MEDLINE and reference lists, which did not yield additional relevant studies. Selection criteria Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as any summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken. Main results We included 85 studies, 48 of which have been added to the previous version of this review. There were 52 comparisons of dichotomous outcomes from 47 trials with over 3500 health professionals that compared audit and feedback to no intervention. The adjusted RDs of non-compliance with desired practice varied from 0.09 (a 9% absolute increase in non-compliance) to 0.71 (a 71% decrease in non-compliance) (median = 0.07, inter-quartile range = 0.02 to 0.11). The one factor that appeared to predict the effectiveness of audit and feedback across studies was baseline non-compliance with recommended practice. Reviewer's conclusions Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. When it is effective, the effects are generally small to moderate. The absolute effects of audit and feedback are more likely to be larger when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low.

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

cording to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised Third Edition, criteria; and (3) either. Results: Of 393 eligible patients, 243 (62%) completed AUDIT-C and interviews. For detecting heavy drinking, AUDIT-C had a higher AUROC than the full AUDIT (0.891 vs 0.881; P = .03). Although the full AUDIT performed better than AUDIT-C for detecting active alcohol abuse or dependence (0.811 vs 0.786; P<.001), the 2 questionnaires performed similarly for detecting heavy drinking and/or active abuse or dependence (0.880 vs 0.881).

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articlepdf/208954/ioi70602.pdf

The AUDIT Alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C) : An effective brief screening test for problem drinking

Health literacy has been associated with health-related knowledge and patient comprehension. This systematic review updates a 2004 review and found 96 eligible studies that suggest that low health ...

Low Health Literacy and Health Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review

Methods: We conducted a national study of burnout in a large sample of US physicians from all specialty disciplines using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile and surveyed a probability-based sample of the general US population for comparison. Burnout was measured using validated instruments. Satisfaction with work-life balance was explored. Results: Of 27276 physicians who received an invitation to participate, 7288 (26.7%) completed surveys. When assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory, 45.8%ofphysiciansreportedatleast1symptomofburnout. Substantial differences in burnout were observed by specialty, with the highest rates among physicians at the front line of care access (family medicine, general internalmedicine,andemergencymedicine).Comparedwith a probability-based sample of 3442 working US adults, physicians were more likely to have symptoms of burnout (37.9% vs 27.8%) and to be dissatisfied with worklife balance (40.2% vs 23.2%) (P.001 for both). Highest level of education completed also related to burnout in a pooled multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, relationship status, and hours worked per week. Comparedwithhighschoolgraduates,individualswithanMD or DO degree were at increased risk for burnout (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; P.001), whereas individuals with a bachelor’sdegree(OR,0.80;P=.048),master’sdegree(OR, 0.71;P=.01),orprofessionalordoctoraldegreeotherthan an MD or DO degree (OR, 0.64; P=.04) were at lower risk for burnout. Conclusions: Burnout is more common among physicians than among other US workers. Physicians in specialties at the front line of care access seem to be at greatest risk.

/pdf/burnout-and-satisfaction-with-work-life-balance-among-us-2q5w0vubv6.pdf

Burnout and Satisfaction With Work-Life Balance Among US Physicians Relative to the General US Population

In this study, burnout was common among resident physicians and was associated with self-reported suboptimal patient care practices.

Burnout and Self-Reported Patient Care in an Internal Medicine Residency Program

Background and Objectives: No practical method for identifying patients with low heath literacy exists. We sought to develop screening questions for identifying patients with inadequate or marginal health literacy. Methods: Patients (n=332) at a VA preoperative clinic completed in-person interviews that included 16 health literacy screening questions on a 5-point Likert scale, followed by a validated health literacy measure, the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (STOHFLA). Based on the STOFHLA, patients were classified as having either inadequate, marginal, or adequate health literacy. Each of the 16 screening questions was evaluated and compared to two comparison standards: (1) inadequate health literacy and (2) inadequate or marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Results: Fifteen participants (4.5%) had inadequate health literacy and 25 (7.5%) had marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Three of the screening questions, “How often do you have someone help you read hospital materials?” “How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?” and “How often do you have problems learning about your medical condition because of difficulty understanding written information?” were effective in detecting inadequate health literacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively). These questions were weaker for identifying patients with marginal health literacy. Conclusions: Three questions were each effective screening tests for inadequate health literacy in this population.

Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy

Background: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption (AUDIT-C) questions have been previously validated as a 3-item screen for alcohol misuse and implemented nationwide in Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient clinics. However, the AUDIT-C's validity and optimal screening threshold(s) in other clinical populations are unknown.

Methods: This cross-sectional validation study compared screening questionnaires with standardized interviews in 392 male and 927 female adult outpatients at an academic family practice clinic from 1993 to 1994. The AUDIT-C, full AUDIT, self-reported risky drinking, AUDIT question #3, and an augmented CAGE questionnaire were compared with an interview primary reference standard of alcohol misuse, defined as a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th ed. alcohol use disorder and/or drinking above recommended limits in the past year.

Results: Based on interviews with 92% of eligible patients, 128 (33%) men and 177 (19%) women met the criteria for alcohol misuse. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) for the AUDIT-C were 0.94 (0.91, 0.96) and 0.90 (0.87, 0.93) in men and women, respectively (p=0.04). Based on AUROC curves, the AUDIT-C performed as well as the full AUDIT and significantly better than self-reported risky drinking, AUDIT question #3, or the augmented CAGE questionnaire (p-values <0.001). The AUDIT-C screening thresholds that simultaneously maximized sensitivity and specificity were ≥4 in men (sensitivity 0.86, specificity 0.89) and ≥3 in women (sensitivity 0.73, specificity 0.91).

Conclusions: The AUDIT-C was an effective screening test for alcohol misuse in this primary care sample. Optimal screening thresholds for alcohol misuse among men (≥4) and women (≥3) were the same as in previously published VA studies.

AUDIT-C as a Brief Screen for Alcohol Misuse in Primary Care

Previous studies have shown that a single question may identify individuals with inadequate health literacy. We evaluated and compared the performance of 3 health literacy screening questions for detecting patients with inadequate or marginal health literacy in a large VA population. We conducted in-person interviews among a random sample of patients from 4 VA medical centers that included 3 health literacy screening questions and 2 validated health literacy measures. Patients were classified as having inadequate, marginal, or adequate health literacy based on the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) and the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM). We evaluated the ability of each of 3 questions to detect: 1) inadequate and the combination of “inadequate or marginal” health literacy based on the S-TOFHLA and 2) inadequate and the combination of “inadequate or marginal” health literacy based on the REALM. Of 4,384 patients, 1,796 (41%) completed interviews. The prevalences of inadequate health literacy were 6.8% and 4.2%, based on the S-TOHFLA and REALM, respectively. Comparable prevalences for marginal health literacy were 7.4% and 17%, respectively. For detecting inadequate health literacy, “How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?” had the largest area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC) of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.69–0.79) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79–0.89) based on the S-TOFHLA and REALM, respectively. AUROCs were lower for detecting “inadequate or marginal” health literacy than for detecting inadequate health literacy for each of the 3 questions. A single question may be useful for detecting patients with inadequate health literacy in a VA population.

/pdf/validation-of-screening-questions-for-limited-health-4jkwry8jst.pdf

Katharine A. Bradley

Papers

The AUDIT Alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C) : An effective brief screening test for problem drinking

Burnout and Self-Reported Patient Care in an Internal Medicine Residency Program

Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy

AUDIT-C as a Brief Screen for Alcohol Misuse in Primary Care

Validation of Screening Questions for Limited Health Literacy in a Large VA Outpatient Population