Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-27T17:37:11.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Recommendations of the Canadian Consensus Conference on Dementia - Dissemination, Implementation, and Evaluation of Impact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

David B. Hogan
Affiliation:
Division of Geriatric Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary
Penny Jennett
Affiliation:
Office of Medical Education, University of Calgary, Calgary
Susan Freter
Affiliation:
Division of Geriatric Medicine, Sir Mortimer B. Davis - Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal
Howard Bergman
Affiliation:
Division of Geriatric Medicine, Sir Mortimer B. Davis - Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal
Howard Chertkow
Affiliation:
Division of Geriatric Medicine, Sir Mortimer B. Davis - Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal
Susan Gold
Affiliation:
Division of Geriatric Medicine, Sir Mortimer B. Davis - Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal
A. Mark Clarfield
Affiliation:
Division of Geriatric Medicine, Sir Mortimer B. Davis - Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal; and the Ministry of Health, Israel
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background:

Subsequent to the development of consensus statements on a clinical topic, it is vital to establish a plan for dissemination, implementation and evaluation of impact. Consensus statements can be used for both guiding continuing medical education (CME) and producing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Insufficient attention to dissemination can lead to a failure to change physician behaviour and improve patient outcomes.

Methods:

A plan to disseminate the conclusions of the Canadian Consensus Conference on Dementia (CCCD) was developed. This plan was based on a literature review of CME and CPGs. A Medline search was performed on the dissemination and evaluation of the 1989 Canadian Consensus Conference on the Assessment of Dementia (CCCAD) and other published guides for physicians on dementia care. CCCD dissemination that has occurred to date (June, 2000) was reviewed in this paper.

Results:

Lectures and unsolicited printed material are weak forms of CME. Small-group interactive CME that provides practice opportunities appears to be the most effective way to change physician behaviour. The ability of CPGs to change physician behaviour is uncertain. It appears that inadequate attention has been placed on CPG dissemination and implementation. The CCCAD had a modest impact on clinical practice in Canada. While dissemination of the conclusions of the CCCD has taken place, evaluation of the impact of the CCCD has yet to be done. Local initiatives utilizing the conclusions of the CCCD are on-going.

Conclusion:

Further work is needed on how to optimize the impact of consensus statements and CPGs. While dissemination of the CCCD has occurred, it is currently unknown whether it has led to any change in physician practices.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2001

References

REFERENCES

1. Patterson, C, Gauthier, S, Bergman, H, et al. The recognition, assessment and management of dementing disorders – conclusions from the Canadian Consensus Conference on Dementia. Can Med Assoc J 1999; 160 (Suppl 12):S1-S15.Google ScholarPubMed
2. Rotondi , AJ, Kvetan, V, Carlet, J, Sibbald, WJ. Consensus Conferences in critical care medicine. Crit Care Clin 1997; 13:417439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Vincent, JL, Berré, J. An evidence-based approach to round tables and consensus conferences. Crit Care Clin 1998, 14:539547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Patterson, CJS, Gauthier, S, Bergman, H, et al. Canadian Consensus Conference on Dementia – a physician's guide to using the recommendations. Can Med Assoc J 1999; 160:17381742.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Cook, DJ, Greengold, NL, Elhodt, AG, Weingarten, SR. The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127:210216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Littlejohns, P, Cluzeau, F, Bale, R, et al. The quantity and quality of clinical practice guidelines for the management of depression in primary care in the UK. Br J Gen Pract 1999; 49:205 210.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Audet, AM, Greenfield, S, et al. Medical practice guidelines – current activities and future directions. Ann Intern Med 1990; 113:709714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Marder, RJ. Relationship of clinical indicators and practice guidelines. QRB Qual Rev Bull 1990; 16(2):60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Directory of Canadian clinical practice guidelines. Canadian Medical Association (Ottawa), 1994.Google Scholar
10. James, PA, Cowan, TM, Graham, RP, Majeroni, BA. Family physicians’attitudes about and use of clinical practice guidelines. J Fam Pract 1997; 45:341347.Google ScholarPubMed
11. Harrigan, ML. Quality of care-issues and challenges in the ’90s. Canadian Medical Association (Ottawa), 1992;6789.Google Scholar
12. Hayward, RSA, Guyatt, GH, Moore, KA, et al. Canadian physicians’ attitudes about and preferences regarding clinical practice guidelines. Can Med Assoc J 1997; 156:17151723.Google ScholarPubMed
13. Buske, L. Impact of CPGs growing. Can Med Assoc J 1998, 159:1336.Google Scholar
14. Implementing clinical practice guidelines – a handbook for practitioners. Canadian Medical Association, 1997.Google Scholar
15. Davis, DA, Taylor-Vaisey, A. Translating guidelines into practice.Can Med Assoc J 1997; 157:408416.Google ScholarPubMed
16. Freemantle, N, Harvey, EL, Wolf, F, et al. Printed educational materials to improve the behaviour of health care professionals and patient outcomes. In: Bero, L, Grilli, R, Grimshaw, J, Oxman, A (eds). Collaboration on Effective Professional Practice Module of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The Cochrane Collaboration; Issue 4. Oxford: Update Software; 1997.Google Scholar
17. Thomson, MA, Oxman, AD, Davis, DA, et al. Outreach visits to improve health professional practice and health care outcomes. In: Bero, L, Grilli, R, Grimshaw, J, Oxman, A (eds.): Collaboration on Effective Professional Practice Module of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The Cochrane Collaboration; Issue 4. Oxford: Update Software; 1997.Google Scholar
18. Thomson, MA, Oxman, AD, Haynes, RB, et al. Local opinion leaders to improve health professional practice and health care outcomes. In: Bero, , Grilli, R, Grimshaw, J, Oxman, A (eds): Collaboration on E ffective Professional Practice Module of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The Cochrane Collaboration; Issue 4. Oxford: Update Software; 1997.Google Scholar
19. Shea, S, DuMouchel, W, Bahamonde, L. A meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials to evaluate computer-based clinical reminder systems for preventive care in the ambulatory setting. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1996; 3:399409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Balas, EA, Boren, SA, Brown, GD, et al. Effect of physician profiling on utilization – a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med 1996; 11:584590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Haynes, RB, Davis, DA, McKibbon, A, Tugwell, P. A critical appraisal of the efficacy of continuing medical education. JAMA 1984; 251:6164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Davis, DA, Thompson, MA, Oxman, AD, Haynes, RB. Evidence for the effectiveness of CME – a review of 50 randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1992; 268:11111117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Davis, DA, Thomson, MA, Oxman, AD, Haynes, RB. Changing physician performance – a systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA 1995; 274:700705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Oxman, AD, Thomson, MA, Davis, DA, Haynes, RB. No magic bullets – a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. Can Med Assoc J 1995; 153:14231431.Google ScholarPubMed
25. Davis, D, O’Brien, MAT, Freemantle, N, et al. Impact of Formal Continuing Medical Education. JAMA 1999; 282:867874.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Browman, GP, Levine, MN, Mohide, EA, et al. The practice guidelines development cycle – a conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13:502512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Rush, J. Clinical practice guidelines – good news, bad news, or no news? Arch Gen Psychiatry 1993; 50:483490.Google ScholarPubMed
28. Kelly, JT, Toepp, MC. Practice parameters – development evaluation dissemination, and implementation. QRB Qual Rev Bull 1992; 18:405409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Brennan , PJ, Abrutyn, E. Developing policies and guidelines. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995; 16:512517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Hayward, R, Laupacis, A. Initiating, conducting and maintaining guideline development programs. Can Med Assoc J 1993; 148:507512.Google ScholarPubMed
31. Wortman, PM, Smyth, JM, Langenbrunner, JC, Yeaton, WH. Consensus among experts and research synthesis – a comparison of methods. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998; 14(1):109122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Dunn, EV, Norton, PG, Stewart, M, Tudiver, F, Bass, MJ (eds). Disseminating research/changing practice – Research Methods for Primary Care, Volume 6. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 1994.Google Scholar
33. Fox, RD, Mazmamian, PE, Putnam, RW (eds). Change and learning in the lives of physicians. New York: Praeger. 1989.Google Scholar
34. Kinkman, MS. Competing demands in psychosocial care. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 1997; 19:98111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Fox, RD, Bennett, NL. Learning and change-implications for continuing medical education. BMJ 1998; 316(7129): 466468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Karuza, J, Calkins, E, Feather, J, et al. Enhancing physician adoption of practice guidelines – dissemination of influenza vaccination guideline using a small-group consensus process. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155:625632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. Worrall, G, Chaulk, P, Freake, D. The effects of clinical practice guidelines on patient outcomes in primary care – a systematic review. Can Med Assoc J 1997; 156:17051712.Google ScholarPubMed
38. Hayward, RSA. Clinical practice guidelines on trial. Can Med Assoc J 1997; 156:17251727.Google ScholarPubMed
39. Cabana, MD, Rand, CS, Powe, NR, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? JAMA 1999; 282:14581465.Google Scholar
40. Basinski, AS. Evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. Can Med Assoc J 1995; 153:15751581.Google ScholarPubMed
41. Organizing Committee, Canadian Consensus Conference on the Assessment of Dementia. Assessing dementia – the Canadian consensus. Can Med Assoc J 1991; 144:851853.Google Scholar
42. Clarfield, AM(Principal Author). Canadian Consensus Conference on the Assessment of Dementia (5–6 October 1989). Canadian Consensus Conference of the Assessment of Dementia (Montreal), 1991.Google Scholar
43. Feightner, JW, Gass, DA, Bass, MJ. An approach to assessing dementia. Can Fam Physician 1992; 38:23472353.Google ScholarPubMed
44. Clarfield, AM, Foley, JM. The American and Canadian consensus conferences on dementia – is there consensus? J Am Geriatr Soc 1993; 41: 883886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45. Clarfield, AM, Kogan, S, Bergman, H, et al. Do consensus conferences influence their participants? Can Med Assoc J 1996; 154:331336.Google ScholarPubMed
46. Freter, S, Bergman, H, Gold, S, Chertkow, H, Clarfield, AM. Prevalence of potentially reversible dementias and actual reversibility in a memory clinic cohort. Can Med Assoc J 1998; 159:657662.Google Scholar
47. Cheok, AS, Cohen, CA, Zucchero, CA. Diagnosing and managing dementia patients. Can Fam Physician 1997; 43:477482.Google ScholarPubMed
48. Clarfield, AM. Canadian Consensus Conference on the Assessment of Dementia reports. (letter). Can Fam Physician 1997; 43:1343.Google ScholarPubMed
49. Bell-Irving, KA, Donnelly, M, Berkowitz, J. Effective dementia management and the family physician – the family physician's perspective. (Personal Communication).Google Scholar
50. Frank, C. Dementia workup – deciding on laboratory testing for the elderly. Can Fam Physician 1998;44: 14891495.Google ScholarPubMed
51. Chiu, H, Zhang, Q. Evaluation of dementia – a systematic study of the usefulness of the American Academy of Neurology’s Practice Parameters. Neurology 1997; 49:925935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52. Gifford, DR, Holloway, RG, Frankel, MR, et al. Improving adherence to dementia guidelines through education and opinion leaders. Ann Intern Med 1999; 131:237246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53. Haynes, RB, Sackett, DL, Gray, JAM, Cook, DJ, Guyatt, GH. Transferring evidence from research into practice – 1. The role of clinical care research evidence in clinical decisions. ACP J Club 1996; 125:A14-A16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54. Haynes , RB, Sackett, DL, Gray, JAM, Cook, DL, Guyatt, GH. Transferring evidence from research into practice – 2. Getting the evidence straight. ACPJ Club 1997; 126:A14-A16.Google ScholarPubMed
55. Gray, JAM, Haynes, RB, Sackett, DL, Cook, DJ, Guyatt, GH. Transferring evidence from research into practice – 3. Developing evidence-based clinical policy. ACPJ Club 1997; 126:A14-A16.Google Scholar
56. Haynes, RB, Sackett, DL, Guyatt, GH, Cook, DJ, Gray, JAM. Transferring evidence from research into practice – 4. Overcoming barriers to application. ACPJ Club 1997; 126:A14-A15.Google ScholarPubMed
57. Langley, C, Faulkner, A, Watkins, C, Gray, S, Harvey, I. Use of guidelines in primary care – practitioners’ perspectives. Fam Pract 1998; 15:105111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58. Wetmore, S, Feightner, J, Gass, D. Worrall, G. Canadian Consensus Conference on Dementia – Summary of the Issues and Key Recommendations. Can Fam Physician 1999; 45:2136–40, 2143, 2154–9.Google ScholarPubMed
59. Patterson CJS on behalf of the Steering Committee for the CCCD. Can we improve primary medical care of people with dementia? Mature Medicine 1999; 219222.Google Scholar
60. National PharmaCom. Press Report (July 27, 1999).Google Scholar
61. Patterson, C, Castillo, C, Hogan, D. Dementia – Practice Patterns and Continuing Education Preferences of Canadian Family Physicians. A National Survey. Clin Invest Med 1999; 22(4 Suppl):S18.Google Scholar
62. The College of Family Physicians of Canada. MainPRO – guidelines and requirements. The College of Family Physicians of Canada, July/1995.Google Scholar
63. Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry (Update 1994). Can Med Assoc J 1994; 150:256A-256C.Google Scholar
64. Hogan, DB, Pereles, L, Lebeuf, C, Wright, B. Assessment and management of dementia – Self-assessment of clinical skills. Can J CME 2000;112(9):105117.Google Scholar
65. Sniderman, AD. Clinical trials, consensus conferences, and clinical practice. Lancet 1999; 354:327330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed