Mindustry suggestions professional#

The WG encompassed the executive group (EG), RG and writing groups (WrG).

Public consultation was sought on draft recommendations through website postings. Suggestions were elicited for optimising group membership and operations, selection and interpretation of evidence, and appropriateness and implementation of recommendations.

Mindustry suggestions professional#

A reference group (RG) comprised content experts, sentinel clinicians and representatives of cardiac clinical networks and professional organisations with interest in ACS care who provided input in regards to guideline scope and content and draft recommendations. Potential endorsing organisations were approached to have members appointed to represent them on the WG and keep them updated on development of the guideline through quarterly reports. This group generated the proposed guideline scope, initial list of key topic areas and expanded list of stakeholders. The WG comprised representatives of all disciplines and professions who interact with ACS patients in both acute and post-acute settings (such as emergency physicians, cardiologists, general physicians, general practitioners, ambulance services, cardiac nurses and allied health professionals), together with a consumer representative. Identifying the likely users of the guideline and involving them in shaping the scope, content and format of the guideline was considered vital in ensuring the final product met their needs. In this article, we outline the key steps taken in producing the recently published 2016 ACS guidelines 11 which may assist other guideline groups.

A guideline methodologist (IAS) produced a discussion paper reviewing best practice and listing 55 recommendations (available on request from the author). The WG decided a more rigorous approach was needed, consistent with IOM standards. 10 In February 2014, a working group (WG) tasked to rewrite the Australian ACS guidelines was established under the auspices of the National Heart Foundation of Australia (NHFA) in partnership with the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ). 9 This has prompted professional cardiac organisations to change and align their CPG processes towards the standards. In March 2011, the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a set of eight standards and related items for CPG development. 7 A review of 313 Australian guidelines issued between 20 noted deficiencies in evidence synthesis in 70% and no mention of possible competing interests of guideline development groups in 79%. 5 In Australia, 2006 guidelines for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) were perceived by one editorialist as being controversial 6 and independent reviewers noted some limitations in methodological rigour, editorial independence and applicability. However, the clinical utility and trustworthiness of many guidelines have been challenged on the grounds of poor quality of evidence used to formulate recommendations, 1 lack of transparency in the guideline development process and potential conflicts of interest (COI), 2 inadequate customisation of recommendations to patients with special needs 3 or competing risks from co-morbidities, 4 failure to consider patient values and preferences, and little attention to implementation challenges. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are designed to aid medical decision-making and to improve care.