Beyond conventional stroke guidelines - Setting priorities
(2007) In Stroke: a journal of cerebral circulation 38(7). p.2185-2190- Abstract
- Background and Purpose - Priorities in the care of stroke patients are often intuitive. An open and translucent priority-setting procedure would benefit patients, professionals, and decision-makers. Prioritization is an innovative part of the new Swedish national stroke guidelines. Methods - Working groups identified diagnostic procedures, interventions and therapies in stroke care, assessed each one according to severity (needs), effect of action, level of scientific evidence and cost-effectiveness. The items were then ranked into priority groups from 1 (highest) to 10 (lowest). Procedures lacking evidence for routine clinical use were also identified (and entered a do-not-do list), as well as procedures in research and development.... (More)
- Background and Purpose - Priorities in the care of stroke patients are often intuitive. An open and translucent priority-setting procedure would benefit patients, professionals, and decision-makers. Prioritization is an innovative part of the new Swedish national stroke guidelines. Methods - Working groups identified diagnostic procedures, interventions and therapies in stroke care, assessed each one according to severity (needs), effect of action, level of scientific evidence and cost-effectiveness. The items were then ranked into priority groups from 1 (highest) to 10 (lowest). Procedures lacking evidence for routine clinical use were also identified (and entered a do-not-do list), as well as procedures in research and development. Resource allocations resulting from the priority-setting process were identified. Results - Of 102 core procedures identified, 50 were assigned to high-priority groups (1-3), 29 to moderate priority groups (4-7) and 23 to low priority groups (8-10). Almost a quarter were graded 8 to 10, indicating that they may not necessarily be applied if resources are scarce. Twenty-eight procedures were assigned to the do-not-do list and 16 to the research and development list. Conclusions - In stroke services, it is possible to identify not only diagnostic procedures and interventions with high priority, but also a considerable number of items used today that have low priority or should not be used at all. Strict adherence to the guidelines would result in a substantial reallocation of resources from low-priority to high-priority areas. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/647953
- author
- Norrving, Bo LU ; Wester, Per ; Sunnerhagen, Katharina Stibrant ; Terent, Andreas ; Sohlberg, Anna ; Berggren, Fredrik ; Wester, Per-Olov and Asplund, Kjell
- organization
- publishing date
- 2007
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- health priorities, cost analysis, needs assessment, guidelines, practice, stroke services
- in
- Stroke: a journal of cerebral circulation
- volume
- 38
- issue
- 7
- pages
- 2185 - 2190
- publisher
- American Heart Association
- external identifiers
-
- wos:000247513300047
- scopus:34347346078
- ISSN
- 1524-4628
- DOI
- 10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.481457
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 58f9a767-878c-46e9-9f13-a43b27680f12 (old id 647953)
- alternative location
- http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/short/38/7/2185
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17540970&dopt=Abstract
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 12:20:05
- date last changed
- 2022-04-05 21:00:31
@article{58f9a767-878c-46e9-9f13-a43b27680f12,
abstract = {{Background and Purpose - Priorities in the care of stroke patients are often intuitive. An open and translucent priority-setting procedure would benefit patients, professionals, and decision-makers. Prioritization is an innovative part of the new Swedish national stroke guidelines. Methods - Working groups identified diagnostic procedures, interventions and therapies in stroke care, assessed each one according to severity (needs), effect of action, level of scientific evidence and cost-effectiveness. The items were then ranked into priority groups from 1 (highest) to 10 (lowest). Procedures lacking evidence for routine clinical use were also identified (and entered a do-not-do list), as well as procedures in research and development. Resource allocations resulting from the priority-setting process were identified. Results - Of 102 core procedures identified, 50 were assigned to high-priority groups (1-3), 29 to moderate priority groups (4-7) and 23 to low priority groups (8-10). Almost a quarter were graded 8 to 10, indicating that they may not necessarily be applied if resources are scarce. Twenty-eight procedures were assigned to the do-not-do list and 16 to the research and development list. Conclusions - In stroke services, it is possible to identify not only diagnostic procedures and interventions with high priority, but also a considerable number of items used today that have low priority or should not be used at all. Strict adherence to the guidelines would result in a substantial reallocation of resources from low-priority to high-priority areas.}},
author = {{Norrving, Bo and Wester, Per and Sunnerhagen, Katharina Stibrant and Terent, Andreas and Sohlberg, Anna and Berggren, Fredrik and Wester, Per-Olov and Asplund, Kjell}},
issn = {{1524-4628}},
keywords = {{health priorities; cost analysis; needs assessment; guidelines; practice; stroke services}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{7}},
pages = {{2185--2190}},
publisher = {{American Heart Association}},
series = {{Stroke: a journal of cerebral circulation}},
title = {{Beyond conventional stroke guidelines - Setting priorities}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.481457}},
doi = {{10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.481457}},
volume = {{38}},
year = {{2007}},
}