p38– patient-centered guidance: identifying evidence on patient preferences for nice short...

P38– Patient-centered guidance: identifying

evidence on patient preferences for NICE short

clinical guidelines

Louise Foster (Presenter) (NICE, Manchester,England, United Kingdom)

PRIMARY TRACK: Guideline developmentSECONDARY TRACK: Guideline development methodsBACKGROUND (INTRODUCTION): This poster willprovide an overview of searching for studies on the preferencesof patients. The aim is to describe NICE methods for identi-fying patient preference studies, and to outline the associatedchallenges and possible enablers to these issues.LEARNING OBJECTIVES (TRAINING GOALS):

1. To provide an overview of the NICE searching processfor patient preferences for clinical guidelines.

2. To outline the challenges in searching for patient pref-erences and to highlight some extended searching tech-niques that may aid optimal retrieval of studies.

METHODS: The poster will describe the NICE searchingprocess for patient preference studies in short clinical guide-lines and reflect on our searching experience over severalcompleted guidelines.RESULTS: Searching for patient preference studies requires adifferent approach to searching for clinical effectiveness oreconomic evaluations. A search filter of patient preferencestudies is used, but there are advantages and disadvantages ofincluding terms relating to study design (e.g., qualitative re-search) and pre-identified patient “issues” (e.g., fear).DISCUSSION (CONCLUSION): There are a number ofchallenges associated with identifying patient preference stud-ies. Discussion will focus on:● Inconsistent indexing● Choice of sources● Volume of studies retrieved● Extended searching techniques – e.g., citation searching● Enablers and the value of an iterative approach.TARGET AUDIENCE(S):

1. Information Specialists/Scientists2. Clinical researcher3. Evidence synthesizer, developer of systematic reviews or

meta-analyses4. Guideline developer5. Consumers and patients representatives

P39– Short guideline development processes:

Producing an evidence based guideline in 12-14

months

Victoria J. Kelly (Presenter) (NICE, Manchester,England, United Kingdom)

PRIMARY TRACK: Guideline developmentSECONDARY TRACK: Guideline development methodsBACKGROUND (INTRODUCTION): Guideline develop-ers need to follow a rigid evidence-based, timelines-driven

process for producing clinical guidelines. At the National In-stitute for health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), we have twoprograms of work. The first is the standard program that pro-duces condition-specific guidance that spans the treatment of apatient from presentation to tertiary care and takes around 24months to develop. This program has been running success-fully for over 10 years. The second, known as the short clinicalguideline program, was developed to run parallel to the stan-dard program to produce guidance quickly on topics deemedurgent by the Department of Health.LEARNING OBJECTIVES (TRAINING GOALS):

1. To present the processes used at NICE within the shortclinical guideline program.

2. Developing robust evidence-based guidelines in lessthan 14 months.

METHODS: The method used to develop the short programused the exact same process as the full program, such assystematic searches, systematic reviews, and a guideline de-velopment group, but focuses on fewer, usually four, keyclinical questions.RESULTS: The short clinical guideline program has beensuccessfully running for three years and has produced aroundsix pieces of guidance, which have all been to the same qualityas a full guideline but produced in less than 18 months.DISCUSSION (CONCLUSION): Guidelines can be pro-duced in significantly shorter timescales to allow for topics thatdon’t necessarily fit a full guideline. These processes followthe same robust evidence-based methods of a full guideline butare streamlined for reduced development times.TARGET AUDIENCE(S):

1. Guideline developer

P40– Consensus Recommendations on post-

traumatic brain injury rehabilitation in Catalonia

(Spain): Overview and methodology

Anna Kotzeva, MD (Presenter) (Catalan Agency forHealth Technology Assessment, Barcelona, Spain);Cari Almazan, MD (Catalan Agency for HealthTechnology Assessment, Barcelona, Spain);Montserrat Rodo (Catalan Health Department,Barcelona, Spain, Barcelona, Spain); Carmen Caja(Social and Health Master Plan, Cat HealthDepartment, Barcelona, Spain)

PRIMARY TRACK: Guideline developmentSECONDARY TRACK: Guidelines for allied health profes-sionalsBACKGROUND (INTRODUCTION): Traumatic brain in-jury (TBI) may result in combination of physical, cognitive,and psychosocial impairments. Each patient with such se-quelae needs a multidisciplinary and personalized approach ofrehabilitation interventions. Scientific evidence is controversialand still insufficient to lead evidence-based decisions in reha-bilitation of post-TBI patients.

98 Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Vol 143, No 1S1, July 2010