There is a growing interest in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for all health care providers. As discussed in the first paper of this 2-part series, there are many misperceptions about guidelines and their potential risks and benefits. The dental profession in Canada, cognizant of both the importance and the challenges of developing sound, credible and relevant guidelines for dentists, has created a unique, autonomous collaboration of multiple stakeholders, the Canadian Collaboration on CPGs in Dentistry (CCCD). This paper discusses the history, structure and processes of the CCCD and introduces the first guideline under development by and for Canadian dentists.
Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) are tools, developed by and for practitioners, to assist in clinical decision making. They are designed to enhance, not replace, clinical judgement and expertise. Well-developed guidelines use the evidence-based approach. The research evidence related to a topic is assembled in a systematic, comprehensive and unbiased manner. Recommendations are made based on the evidence and practitioner feedback is sought prior to formulating the final practice guideline. There are many misperceptions about CPGs and some dentists are wary about their development and use. In this paper, we explore some of the reasons for these misperceptions, review the benefits of sound guidelines, and discuss some of the challenges for guideline development in dentistry in Canada
Orientation to priority utilization of economic and medical legal approaches to reformation of dental service is an obligatory condition for effective solution of the problems of Russian dentistry. The priority tasks are: creation of economic and legal models of a dental profession and improvement of its normative and legal basis; development and realization of general Russian and regional programs of transformation of state dental centers into other than state ones and privatization of dental institutions; practical reformation of economic mechanisms of dental service; development of methods for state regulation of dental activities during the transition period; determination of directions and choice of social measures to modify dentistry service; creation of a system of guarantee of high quality of dental care; improvement of legally-based professional protection of dentists.
Although the development and use of practice-related guidelines as educational aids has a long history in the health professions, scientific assessment indicates that they have had limited success in changing practice patterns. This is principally due to the exclusion of practitioners from the development process, and the lack of a credible scientific basis for many guidelines. Past failures have led to new methods of guideline development based on a critical analysis of scientific data. These methods, which involve legitimate professional organizations at all stages of the development process, are clearly a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, there are signs that current guideline developers still fail to recognize the critical nature of the new methods or the need for an open and inclusive development process. It is even more disquieting that the objective of some guideline developers, such as licensing bodies, is the formulation of standards or review criteria, particularly when there are very few therapeutic practices with a sufficient scientific basis to justify such a designation. National and provincial societies, as well as dental educators, need to assume a leadership role to ensure that if guidelines are required, they will be developed as credible aids for the improvement of patient care. In this paper, the authors recount why the "traditional process" of guideline development resulted in guidelines that were mistrusted by the profession and, as a result, ineffective. They also outline the widely-documented current methodology, which should be followed if guidelines are to be accepted by the profession. Finally, they discuss the critical issue of who should develop guidelines, and examine their role in dental practice and education.
Comment In: J Can Dent Assoc. 1997 Feb;63(2):759046725