Connect
MJA
MJA

It is time for clinical guidelines to enter the digital age

Ian N Olver and Jutta J Von Dincklage
Med J Aust 2013; 199 (9): . || doi: 10.5694/mja13.10862
Published online: 4 November 2013

Digital guidelines can be easily updated with new evidence, continuously reviewed and widely disseminated

The purpose of clinical practice guidelines is to enhance the quality of care by promoting consistent clinical decision making based on the best evidence.1 A major problem with traditional printed guidelines is that it is impossible to update them promptly enough to keep pace with rapidly emerging evidence.2 Publishing and disseminating written material and receiving feedback from stakeholders are subject to physical limitations. These limitations cause delays in implementation and the added expense of time-consuming non-automated electronic searching of bibliographic databases.


  • Cancer Council Australia, Sydney, NSW.


Correspondence: ian.olver@cancer.org.au

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. Rosenbrand K, Van Croonenberg J, Wittenberg J. Guideline development. In: Ten Teije A, Miksch S, Lucas P, editors. Computer-based medical guidelines and protocols: a primer and current trands. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2008: 3-21.
  • 2. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLOS Med 2010; 7: e1000326.
  • 3. National Institute of Clinical Studies. Do guidelines make a difference to health care outcomes? 2006. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/nics/material_resources/Do%20guidelines%20make%20a%20difference%20to% 20health%20care%20outcomes.pdf (accessed Sep 2013).
  • 4. Francke AL, Smit MC, de Veer AJ, Mistiaen P. Factors influencing the implementation of clinical guidelines for health care professionals: a systematic meta-review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008; 8: 38.
  • 5. The AGREE Next Steps Consortium. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II: AGREE II Instrument. May 2009. http://www.agreetrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/AGREE_II_Users_Manual_and_23-item_Instrument_ENGLISH.pdf (accessed Jan 2013).
  • 6. Bender JL, O’Grady LA, Deshpande A, et al. Collaborative authoring: a case study of the use of a wiki as a tool to keep systematic reviews up to date. Open Med 2011; 5: e201-e208.
  • 7. Bastida R, McGrath I, Maude P. Wiki use in mental health practice: recognizing potential use of collaborative technology. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2010; 19: 142-148.
  • 8. Cancer Australia. Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of lung cancer. Last modified 3 December 2012. http://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/Guidelines:Lung_cancer (accessed Sep 2013).
  • 9. Tsafnat G, Dunn A, Glasziou P, Coiera E. The automation of systematic reviews. BMJ 2013; 346: f139.
  • 10. Fervers B, Carretier J, Bataillard A. Clinical practice guidelines. J Visc Surg 2010; 147: e341-e349.
  • 11. Bartholomew NG, Joe GW, Rowan-Szal GA, Simpson DD. Counsellor assessments of training and adoption barriers. J Subst Abuse Treat 2007; 33: 193-199.
  • 12. Kerfoot BP, Lawler EV, Sokolovskaya G, et al. Durable improvements in prostate cancer screening from online spaced education: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med 2010; 39: 472-478.
  • 13. Kerfoot BP, Kearney MC, Connelly D, Ritchey ML. Interactive spaced education to assess and improve knowledge of clinical practice guidelines: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2009; 249: 744-749.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.