The Experts below are selected from a list of 63 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Anna R. Gagliardi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline, clinical condition, country of origin, and type of Developer Organization: content analysis of guidelines
Implementation Science, 2017Co-Authors: Laurel Liang, Jhoni Abi Safi, Anna R. GagliardiAbstract:Background Guideline implementation tools (GI tools) can improve clinician behavior and patient outcomes. Analyses of guidelines published before 2010 found that many did not offer GI tools. Since 2010 standards, frameworks and instructions for GI tools have emerged. This study analyzed the number and types of GI tools offered by guidelines published in 2010 or later. Methods Content analysis and a published GI tool framework were used to categorize GI tools by condition, country, and type of Organization. English-language guidelines on arthritis, asthma, colorectal cancer, depression, diabetes, heart failure, and stroke management were identified in the National Guideline Clearinghouse. Screening and data extraction were in triplicate. Findings were reported with summary statistics. Results Eighty-five (67.5%) of 126 eligible guidelines published between 2010 and 2017 offered one or more of a total of 464 GI tools. The mean number of GI tools per guideline was 5.5 (median 4.0, range 1 to 28) and increased over time. The majority of GI tools were for clinicians (239, 51.5%), few were for patients (113, 24.4%), and fewer still were to support implementation (66, 14.3%) or evaluation (46, 9.9%). Most clinician GI tools were guideline summaries (116, 48.5%), and most patient GI tools were condition-specific information (92, 81.4%). Government agencies (patient 23.5%, clinician 28.9%, implementation 24.1%, evaluation 23.5%) and Developers in the UK (patient 18.5%, clinician 25.2%, implementation 27.2%, evaluation 29.1%) were more likely to generate guidelines that offered all four types of GI tools. Professional societies were more likely to generate guidelines that included clinician GI tools. Conclusions Many guidelines do not include any GI tools, or a variety of GI tools for different stakeholders that may be more likely to prompt guideline uptake (point-of-care forms or checklists for clinicians, decision-making or self-management tools for patients, implementation and evaluation tools for managers and policy-makers). While this may vary by country and type of Organization, and suggests that Developers could improve the range of GI tools they develop, further research is needed to identify determinants and potential solutions. Research is also needed to examine the cost-effectiveness of various types of GI tools so that Developers know where to direct their efforts and scarce resources.
-
number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline clinical condition country of origin and type of Developer Organization content analysis of guidelines
Implementation Science, 2017Co-Authors: Laurel Liang, Jhoni Abi Safi, Anna R. GagliardiAbstract:Guideline implementation tools (GI tools) can improve clinician behavior and patient outcomes. Analyses of guidelines published before 2010 found that many did not offer GI tools. Since 2010 standards, frameworks and instructions for GI tools have emerged. This study analyzed the number and types of GI tools offered by guidelines published in 2010 or later. Content analysis and a published GI tool framework were used to categorize GI tools by condition, country, and type of Organization. English-language guidelines on arthritis, asthma, colorectal cancer, depression, diabetes, heart failure, and stroke management were identified in the National Guideline Clearinghouse. Screening and data extraction were in triplicate. Findings were reported with summary statistics. Eighty-five (67.5%) of 126 eligible guidelines published between 2010 and 2017 offered one or more of a total of 464 GI tools. The mean number of GI tools per guideline was 5.5 (median 4.0, range 1 to 28) and increased over time. The majority of GI tools were for clinicians (239, 51.5%), few were for patients (113, 24.4%), and fewer still were to support implementation (66, 14.3%) or evaluation (46, 9.9%). Most clinician GI tools were guideline summaries (116, 48.5%), and most patient GI tools were condition-specific information (92, 81.4%). Government agencies (patient 23.5%, clinician 28.9%, implementation 24.1%, evaluation 23.5%) and Developers in the UK (patient 18.5%, clinician 25.2%, implementation 27.2%, evaluation 29.1%) were more likely to generate guidelines that offered all four types of GI tools. Professional societies were more likely to generate guidelines that included clinician GI tools. Many guidelines do not include any GI tools, or a variety of GI tools for different stakeholders that may be more likely to prompt guideline uptake (point-of-care forms or checklists for clinicians, decision-making or self-management tools for patients, implementation and evaluation tools for managers and policy-makers). While this may vary by country and type of Organization, and suggests that Developers could improve the range of GI tools they develop, further research is needed to identify determinants and potential solutions. Research is also needed to examine the cost-effectiveness of various types of GI tools so that Developers know where to direct their efforts and scarce resources.
Laurel Liang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline, clinical condition, country of origin, and type of Developer Organization: content analysis of guidelines
Implementation Science, 2017Co-Authors: Laurel Liang, Jhoni Abi Safi, Anna R. GagliardiAbstract:Background Guideline implementation tools (GI tools) can improve clinician behavior and patient outcomes. Analyses of guidelines published before 2010 found that many did not offer GI tools. Since 2010 standards, frameworks and instructions for GI tools have emerged. This study analyzed the number and types of GI tools offered by guidelines published in 2010 or later. Methods Content analysis and a published GI tool framework were used to categorize GI tools by condition, country, and type of Organization. English-language guidelines on arthritis, asthma, colorectal cancer, depression, diabetes, heart failure, and stroke management were identified in the National Guideline Clearinghouse. Screening and data extraction were in triplicate. Findings were reported with summary statistics. Results Eighty-five (67.5%) of 126 eligible guidelines published between 2010 and 2017 offered one or more of a total of 464 GI tools. The mean number of GI tools per guideline was 5.5 (median 4.0, range 1 to 28) and increased over time. The majority of GI tools were for clinicians (239, 51.5%), few were for patients (113, 24.4%), and fewer still were to support implementation (66, 14.3%) or evaluation (46, 9.9%). Most clinician GI tools were guideline summaries (116, 48.5%), and most patient GI tools were condition-specific information (92, 81.4%). Government agencies (patient 23.5%, clinician 28.9%, implementation 24.1%, evaluation 23.5%) and Developers in the UK (patient 18.5%, clinician 25.2%, implementation 27.2%, evaluation 29.1%) were more likely to generate guidelines that offered all four types of GI tools. Professional societies were more likely to generate guidelines that included clinician GI tools. Conclusions Many guidelines do not include any GI tools, or a variety of GI tools for different stakeholders that may be more likely to prompt guideline uptake (point-of-care forms or checklists for clinicians, decision-making or self-management tools for patients, implementation and evaluation tools for managers and policy-makers). While this may vary by country and type of Organization, and suggests that Developers could improve the range of GI tools they develop, further research is needed to identify determinants and potential solutions. Research is also needed to examine the cost-effectiveness of various types of GI tools so that Developers know where to direct their efforts and scarce resources.
-
number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline clinical condition country of origin and type of Developer Organization content analysis of guidelines
Implementation Science, 2017Co-Authors: Laurel Liang, Jhoni Abi Safi, Anna R. GagliardiAbstract:Guideline implementation tools (GI tools) can improve clinician behavior and patient outcomes. Analyses of guidelines published before 2010 found that many did not offer GI tools. Since 2010 standards, frameworks and instructions for GI tools have emerged. This study analyzed the number and types of GI tools offered by guidelines published in 2010 or later. Content analysis and a published GI tool framework were used to categorize GI tools by condition, country, and type of Organization. English-language guidelines on arthritis, asthma, colorectal cancer, depression, diabetes, heart failure, and stroke management were identified in the National Guideline Clearinghouse. Screening and data extraction were in triplicate. Findings were reported with summary statistics. Eighty-five (67.5%) of 126 eligible guidelines published between 2010 and 2017 offered one or more of a total of 464 GI tools. The mean number of GI tools per guideline was 5.5 (median 4.0, range 1 to 28) and increased over time. The majority of GI tools were for clinicians (239, 51.5%), few were for patients (113, 24.4%), and fewer still were to support implementation (66, 14.3%) or evaluation (46, 9.9%). Most clinician GI tools were guideline summaries (116, 48.5%), and most patient GI tools were condition-specific information (92, 81.4%). Government agencies (patient 23.5%, clinician 28.9%, implementation 24.1%, evaluation 23.5%) and Developers in the UK (patient 18.5%, clinician 25.2%, implementation 27.2%, evaluation 29.1%) were more likely to generate guidelines that offered all four types of GI tools. Professional societies were more likely to generate guidelines that included clinician GI tools. Many guidelines do not include any GI tools, or a variety of GI tools for different stakeholders that may be more likely to prompt guideline uptake (point-of-care forms or checklists for clinicians, decision-making or self-management tools for patients, implementation and evaluation tools for managers and policy-makers). While this may vary by country and type of Organization, and suggests that Developers could improve the range of GI tools they develop, further research is needed to identify determinants and potential solutions. Research is also needed to examine the cost-effectiveness of various types of GI tools so that Developers know where to direct their efforts and scarce resources.
Jhoni Abi Safi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline, clinical condition, country of origin, and type of Developer Organization: content analysis of guidelines
Implementation Science, 2017Co-Authors: Laurel Liang, Jhoni Abi Safi, Anna R. GagliardiAbstract:Background Guideline implementation tools (GI tools) can improve clinician behavior and patient outcomes. Analyses of guidelines published before 2010 found that many did not offer GI tools. Since 2010 standards, frameworks and instructions for GI tools have emerged. This study analyzed the number and types of GI tools offered by guidelines published in 2010 or later. Methods Content analysis and a published GI tool framework were used to categorize GI tools by condition, country, and type of Organization. English-language guidelines on arthritis, asthma, colorectal cancer, depression, diabetes, heart failure, and stroke management were identified in the National Guideline Clearinghouse. Screening and data extraction were in triplicate. Findings were reported with summary statistics. Results Eighty-five (67.5%) of 126 eligible guidelines published between 2010 and 2017 offered one or more of a total of 464 GI tools. The mean number of GI tools per guideline was 5.5 (median 4.0, range 1 to 28) and increased over time. The majority of GI tools were for clinicians (239, 51.5%), few were for patients (113, 24.4%), and fewer still were to support implementation (66, 14.3%) or evaluation (46, 9.9%). Most clinician GI tools were guideline summaries (116, 48.5%), and most patient GI tools were condition-specific information (92, 81.4%). Government agencies (patient 23.5%, clinician 28.9%, implementation 24.1%, evaluation 23.5%) and Developers in the UK (patient 18.5%, clinician 25.2%, implementation 27.2%, evaluation 29.1%) were more likely to generate guidelines that offered all four types of GI tools. Professional societies were more likely to generate guidelines that included clinician GI tools. Conclusions Many guidelines do not include any GI tools, or a variety of GI tools for different stakeholders that may be more likely to prompt guideline uptake (point-of-care forms or checklists for clinicians, decision-making or self-management tools for patients, implementation and evaluation tools for managers and policy-makers). While this may vary by country and type of Organization, and suggests that Developers could improve the range of GI tools they develop, further research is needed to identify determinants and potential solutions. Research is also needed to examine the cost-effectiveness of various types of GI tools so that Developers know where to direct their efforts and scarce resources.
-
number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline clinical condition country of origin and type of Developer Organization content analysis of guidelines
Implementation Science, 2017Co-Authors: Laurel Liang, Jhoni Abi Safi, Anna R. GagliardiAbstract:Guideline implementation tools (GI tools) can improve clinician behavior and patient outcomes. Analyses of guidelines published before 2010 found that many did not offer GI tools. Since 2010 standards, frameworks and instructions for GI tools have emerged. This study analyzed the number and types of GI tools offered by guidelines published in 2010 or later. Content analysis and a published GI tool framework were used to categorize GI tools by condition, country, and type of Organization. English-language guidelines on arthritis, asthma, colorectal cancer, depression, diabetes, heart failure, and stroke management were identified in the National Guideline Clearinghouse. Screening and data extraction were in triplicate. Findings were reported with summary statistics. Eighty-five (67.5%) of 126 eligible guidelines published between 2010 and 2017 offered one or more of a total of 464 GI tools. The mean number of GI tools per guideline was 5.5 (median 4.0, range 1 to 28) and increased over time. The majority of GI tools were for clinicians (239, 51.5%), few were for patients (113, 24.4%), and fewer still were to support implementation (66, 14.3%) or evaluation (46, 9.9%). Most clinician GI tools were guideline summaries (116, 48.5%), and most patient GI tools were condition-specific information (92, 81.4%). Government agencies (patient 23.5%, clinician 28.9%, implementation 24.1%, evaluation 23.5%) and Developers in the UK (patient 18.5%, clinician 25.2%, implementation 27.2%, evaluation 29.1%) were more likely to generate guidelines that offered all four types of GI tools. Professional societies were more likely to generate guidelines that included clinician GI tools. Many guidelines do not include any GI tools, or a variety of GI tools for different stakeholders that may be more likely to prompt guideline uptake (point-of-care forms or checklists for clinicians, decision-making or self-management tools for patients, implementation and evaluation tools for managers and policy-makers). While this may vary by country and type of Organization, and suggests that Developers could improve the range of GI tools they develop, further research is needed to identify determinants and potential solutions. Research is also needed to examine the cost-effectiveness of various types of GI tools so that Developers know where to direct their efforts and scarce resources.
Charles Berndt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
New Challenges in Contamination Control: The Leadership Role of IEST in Shaping Future Research and Practices.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2020Co-Authors: Tengfang Xu, Jane Eudy, Charles BerndtAbstract:New Challenges in Contamination Control: The Leadership Role of IEST in Shaping Future Research and Practices Tengfang Xu, Ph.D., PE, Technical Vice President, IEST Jan Eudy, Past President, IEST Chuck Berndt, Communications Vice President, IEST If you have not been to ESTECH, the annual technical meeting and exposition of the Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology (IEST) recently, you are missing a great deal. Consider attending the 53rd such meeting April 29–May 2, 2007 at the Indian Lakes Resort in Bloomingdale (northwest suburban Chicago), Illinois. A leading industrial standards writing Organization since 1953, IEST has established seven tracks of Recommended Practices (RP) in the Standards and Practices (S&P) portion of the Contamination Control (CC) program, including the most recent program in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. In addition, there are other parallel activities in IEST’s Design, Test, and Evaluation and Product Reliability division. Within each of these programs, scientists, engineers, and contamination control professionals from all over the world interact closely in working group meetings, seminars, and tutorials. Together they have developed, published, and disseminated technical information and industrial standards, including RPs, Reference Documents (RDs), and ISO Standards to address ever evolving challenges in contamination control and sustainable development of the industries served by IEST. The series of Standards, RPs, and RDs are developed through years of discussion, deliberation and review thus providing peer-reviewed best practices, standardized procedures and test methods to furnish guidance and address problems in contamination control. In general, IEST’s procedures for the development of Standards, RPs, or RDs are in accordance with its status as an ANSI-accredited Standards Developer Organization (SDO). Specifically, RPs and RDs are formulated by IEST Working Groups (WGs) through a cooperative exchange of knowledge, experience and ideas that culminate in useful and timely information invaluable to all that avail themselves of this knowledge. These documents are reviewed every three years so that new knowledge, information, and methods may be integrated into them in a timely manner. All WG member contributions are provided by professionals on a volunteer basis. There are increasing challenges associated with keeping up with new knowledge requirements. However, IEST has successfully relied on ever-evolving leadership and concerted efforts by numerous volunteers to develop, revise, and publish new documents at a faster pace than had been seen in recent decades. For example, eight updated revisions of existing or brand new RPs have been published since 2005 (marked as yellow), and approximately seven more RPs and RDs are well positioned in the pipeline for official publication by early 2007 (marked as green). Due to their quality and timeliness, many IEST RPs are primary references and sources of information for compliance with the ISO 14644 series of International Standards developed by ISO Technical Committee (ISO/TC) 209, Cleanrooms and associated controlled environments. Additionally, IEST conducts technical seminars, workshops, and tutorials at its annual technical meeting (ESTECH), its Fall Conference, and online to assist related industries to better understand the “state-of-the art” philosophies and effectively utilize IEST Recommended Practices and ISO Standards. Being the leading Organization and a voting member of the ANSI-accredited US Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to ISO/TC 229, Nanotechnologies, IEST is in a unique position to contribute its expertise in developing international standards for controlled environments to anticipate the unique needs of the emerging nanoscience/nanotechnology industry. For example, the IEST has formulated a new program to address the complex issues relevant to all industries working in this area and includes nanoparticles, other relevant contamination control
-
New Challenges in Contamination Control: The Leadership Role ofIEST in Shaping Future Research and Practices.
2020Co-Authors: Tengfang Xu, Jane Eudy, Charles BerndtAbstract:A leading industrial standards writing Organization since 1953, IEST has established seven tracks of Recommended Practices (RP) in the Standards and Practices (S&P) portion of the Contamination Control (CC) program, including the most recent program in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. In addition, there are other parallel activities in IEST's Design, Test, and Evaluation and Product Reliability division. Within each of these programs, scientists, engineers, and contamination control professionals from all over the world interact closely in working group meetings, seminars, and tutorials. Together they have developed, published, and disseminated technical information and industrial standards, including RPs, Reference Documents (RDs), and ISO Standards to address ever evolving challenges in contamination control and sustainable development of the industries served by IEST. The series of Standards, RPs, and RDs are developed through years of discussion, deliberation and review thus providing peer-reviewed best practices, standardized procedures and test methods to furnish guidance and address problems in contamination control. In general, IEST's procedures for the development of Standards, RPs, or RDs are in accordance with its status as an ANSI-accredited Standards Developer Organization (SDO). Specifically, RPs and RDs are formulated by IEST Working Groups (WGs) through a cooperative exchange of knowledge, experience and ideas that culminatemore » in useful and timely information invaluable to all that avail themselves of this knowledge. These documents are reviewed every three years so that new knowledge, information, and methods may be integrated into them in a timely manner. All WG member contributions are provided by professionals on a volunteer basis. There are increasing challenges associated with keeping up with new knowledge requirements. However, IEST has successfully relied on ever-evolving leadership and concerted efforts by numerous volunteers to develop, revise, and publish new documents at a faster pace than had been seen in recent decades. For example, eight updated revisions of existing or brand new RPs have been published since 2005 (marked as yellow), and approximately seven more RPs and RDs are well positioned in the pipeline for official publication by early 2007 (marked as green). Due to their quality and timeliness, many IEST RPs are primary references and sources of information for compliance with the ISO 14644 series of International Standards developed by ISO Technical Committee (ISO/TC) 209, Cleanrooms and associated controlled environments. Additionally, IEST conducts technical seminars, workshops, and tutorials at its annual technical meeting (ESTECH), its Fall Conference, and online to assist related industries to better understand the 'state-of-the art' philosophies and effectively utilize IEST Recommended Practices and ISO Standards. Being the leading Organization and a voting member of the ANSI-accredited US Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to ISO/TC 229, Nanotechnologies, IEST is in a unique position to contribute its expertise in developing international standards for controlled environments to anticipate the unique needs of the emerging nanoscience/nanotechnology industry. For example, the IEST has formulated a new program to address the complex issues relevant to all industries working in this area and includes nanoparticles, other relevant contamination control 2 issues, and building facilities to conduct research and produce products related to nanotechnology. Leading industry experts in this area have been gathering at IEST conferences since the Fall Conference in 2005 and are working diligently on a first-ever industry road map and subsequent RPs the IEST Recommended Practices NANO200 series. The first document titled 'Planning, Design, Construction & Operations Considerations for Facilities Engaged in Research or Production at the Nanometer Scale' is, as mentioned earlier, the 'road map document' for all industries building facilities to perform research and manufacturing at nanoscale levels. The document is scheduled for publication latter part of 2007. IEST leaders are continually embracing new challenges and taking advantage of new opportunities to lead the way in the development of ground-breaking documents. We invite you to join in and participate in the relevant WGs, whether you are from the industrial sector or from academia. To increase your knowledge of the constantly evolving issues of the contamination control industry, you will want to purchase all of the recent versions of these documents and become an active part of the Organization. For further information, please visit www.iest.org.« less
Yi Deng - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
COMPSAC - Architecture-centered enterprise system development and integration based on distributed object technology standard
Proceedings. Twenty-Third Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (Cat. No.99CB37032), 1999Co-Authors: K. Wreder, Yi DengAbstract:Healthcare information systems are complex and critical enterprise systems that link together geographically distributed hospitals, clinics, physician offices and other business units with distinct business functions and mutual dependencies. In the past, these systems were built based on proprietary solutions, acquired in piecemeal fashion and tightly coupled through ad hoc means. This resulted in stovepipe systems that had many duplicated functions and that were monolithic, non-extensible and non-interoperable. How to migrate from these stovepipe systems to the next-generation open healthcare information systems that are interoperable, extensible and maintainable is increasingly a pressing problem for the healthcare industry. In this paper, we present our experience in addressing the problem using an architecture-centered approach for enterprise system development and integration based on the distributed object technology standards OMA/CORBA. Our case study is conducted from a user Organization (as opposed to Developer Organization) point of view and is based on a large-scale effort undertaken at the Baptist Health Systems of South Florida, a large healthcare Organization serving the South Florida region. Key lessons learnt from this case study include: (1) establishing a clear architectural vision is essential to successful enterprise system development; (2) adoption of a standard architecture and infrastructure is the best approach to achieve interoperable, extensible and cohesive enterprise systems; and (3) an effective development methodology and business process are key to implementing the architectural vision.
-
Architecture-centered enterprise system development and integration based on distributed object technology standard
Proceedings. Twenty-Third Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (Cat. No.99CB37032), 1999Co-Authors: K. Wreder, Yi DengAbstract:Healthcare information systems are complex and critical enterprise systems that link together geographically distributed hospitals, clinics, physician offices and other business units with distinct business functions and mutual dependencies. In the past, these systems were built based on proprietary solutions, acquired in piecemeal fashion and tightly coupled through ad hoc means. This resulted in stovepipe systems that had many duplicated functions and that were monolithic, non-extensible and non-interoperable. How to migrate from these stovepipe systems to the next-generation open healthcare information systems that are interoperable, extensible and maintainable is increasingly a pressing problem for the healthcare industry. In this paper, we present our experience in addressing the problem using an architecture-centered approach for enterprise system development and integration based on the distributed object technology standards OMA/CORBA. Our case study is conducted from a user Organization (as opposed to Developer Organization) point of view and is based on a large-scale effort undertaken at the Baptist Health Systems of South Florida, a large healthcare Organization serving the South Florida region. Key lessons learnt from this case study include: (1) establishing a clear architectural vision is essential to successful enterprise system development; (2) adoption of a standard architecture and infrastructure is the best approach to achieve interoperable, extensible and cohesive enterprise systems; and (3) an effective development methodology and business process are key to implementing the architectural vision.