P44– Patient and career participation in the

elaboration of the clinical guidelines (CG) of

psychosocial interventions in the treatment of

severe mental illness

Maria Jose Vicente-Edo (Presenter) (HealthSciences Institute of Aragon, Zaragoza, Zaragoza,Spain); Jose Miguel Carrasco-Gimeno (HealthSciences Institute of Aragon, Zaragoza, Spain);Jose Ignacio Martın Sanchez (Health SciencesInstitute of Aragon, Zaragoza, Spain);Clinical Guideline Development Group (Zaragoza,Spain); Jose Ma Mengual Gil (Health SciencesInstitute of Aragon, Zaragoza, Spain)

PRIMARY TRACK: Guideline development

SECONDARY TRACK: Patient/family/stakeholder roles inguideline developmentBACKGROUND (INTRODUCTION): Health care profes-sionals and patients are not used to working together to elab-orate CGs. It is important that CGs are evidence based, andpatients and families can contribute with perceptions about thequality of care and its outcomes in order to enhance CGvalidity and facilitate the future implementation.LEARNING OBJECTIVES (TRAINING GOALS):

1. Identify methods of patient and families’ participation inthe elaboration of CGs.

2. Understand the importance of involving patient andhealth professionals in the elaboration of CGs.

METHODS: FIRST PHASE: Two groups formed by ninepatients (six women and four men) and others formed by 10caretakers (six women and four men), were invited to partic-ipate in two working groups, where they were asked to givetheir thoughts (problems and needs) about:● Institutions and treatment for persons with mental illness● Issues related to social impact (isolation, stigma . . .)SECOND PHASE: The CDG elaborated a document thataddressed patient and caretaker information within the CG andwas sent to the patients’ associations, who were asked to givefeedback.RESULTS: A CG with 20 clinical questions (CQs) was pub-lished in 2009. Nine of the CQs were influenced by the familyand patients’ working groups (psychoeducation, family andsocial interventions). The remaining CQs (other psychologicaltreatment and dual diagnosis, homelessness and learning dis-abilities) were suggested by the CDG. From patients and fam-ilies feedback, the information provided in the CG is related tolegal, social, clinical, and treatment issues.DISCUSSION (CONCLUSION): Health care has becomeincreasingly patient-centered, and clinical guidelines should beconsidered one of the instruments that contribute toward en-hancing the quality of health care. This experience provides agood example of how patient and professionals can worktogether, which will help not only in the elaboration of the CGitself but also in the future implementation of the CG.

TARGET AUDIENCE(S):

1. Guideline developer2. Guideline implementer3. Consumers and patients representatives

P45– Guidance review: Issues, methods, and the

role of the Information Specialist

Sarah Glover (Presenter) (NICE, Manchester,England, United Kingdom)

PRIMARY TRACK: Guideline developmentSECONDARY TRACK: Updating guidelinesBACKGROUND (INTRODUCTION): The aim of thisposter is to explore the types of support that the InformationServices team at the National Institute for Health and ClinicalExcellence could offer to help identify whether any significantnew evidence has emerged since existing guidance was pub-lished.LEARNING OBJECTIVES (TRAINING GOALS):

1. To understand how the searching process can support thedecision-making of the development team and their in-tention to review existing guidance.

2. Explore and assess the suitability of various methods forthe purpose of reviewing guidance.

METHODS: The processes involved in guidance reviews arederived from the National Institute for Health and ClinicalExcellence (2009) “The Guidelines Manual”; Johnston ME etal. Keeping cancer guidelines current: results of a comprehen-sive prospective literature monitoring strategy for twenty clin-ical practice guidelines, International Journal of TechnologyAssessment in Health Care 2003;19(4):646-55; Shekelle P etal. When should clinical guidelines be updated? BMJ 2001;323:155-7; Gartlehner G et al. Assessing the need to updateprevention guidelines: a comparison of two methods. Interna-tional Journal for Quality in Health Care 2004;16(5):399-406.RESULTS: All guidelines developed by NICE are publishedwith the expectation that they will be reviewed and updated asnecessary. The guidance manuals state that guidelines will beassessed for review three years from their original publicationdate. Currently, a number of methods are used to determinewhether a guideline should be updated and how to update itonce that decision has been made. Methods include citationsearching, developing new search strategies, or rerunning orig-inal search strategies.DISCUSSION (CONCLUSION): Several programs atNICE have either recently reached the three-year milestone orare about to, and the Information Services team needs toconsider how to respond to this challenge.TARGET AUDIENCE(S):

1. Guideline developer

P46– Improving the updating process of current

care guidelines

Mari Honkanen (Presenter) (The Finnish MedicalSociety Duodecim, Helsinki, Finland); Raija Sipila

101Poster