To the Editor: In response to the news article from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) published recently in the Journal,1 we would like to highlight a generally neglected facet of the clinical guidelines discussion: acceptability. While it is clearly critical for clinical guidelines development to adopt a thorough and transparent process, it is equally important to focus on the end user.2 Many good quality clinical guidelines lay unused because they ignore practitioner requirements, including practical, design and context-specific needs.3
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Ghersi D, Anderson WP. Can Australia's clinical practice guidelines be trusted? Med J Aust 2015; 202: 8. <MJA full text>
- 2. Pronovost P. Enhancing physician's use of clinical guidelines. JAMA 2013; 310: 2501-2502.
- 3. Shekelle P, Woolf S, Grimshaw J, et al. Developing clinical practice guidelines: reviewing, reporting and publishing guidelines; updating guidelines; and the emerging issues of enhancing guideline implementability and accounting for comorbid conditions in guideline development. Implement Sci 2012; 7: 62.
- 4. Chaseling M, Mentha R, Davey C. CARPA standard treatment manual 4th Edition Evaluation Report. Alice Springs: Centre for Remote Health, 2008. http://www.carpa.org.au/drupal/sites/default/files/CARPA_STM4thEd_Eval.pdf (accessed Apr 2015).
- 5. National Health and Medical Research Council. A guide to the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. Canberra: NHMRC, 1998. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cp30.pdf?q=publications/synopses/_files/cp30.pdf (accessed Apr 2015).
We are part of a project, funded by the Australian Government, to develop clinical practice guidelines for remote health care practitioners.