top of page

Parenthood Support Group

Public·18 members
Mahmood Kapustin
Mahmood Kapustin

The Patient History: Evidence-Based Approach (T... [VERIFIED]



The chief complaint of abdominal pain accounts for 5% to 10% of all presentations in the emergency department. With such broad differential and diagnostic modalities available, this article focuses on a systematic approach to evaluating abdominal pain, essential to providing patients with efficient and accurate care.




The Patient History: Evidence-Based Approach (T...


DOWNLOAD: https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Ftinourl.com%2F2ueEZw&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AOvVaw20dlJYxKSk0XBN9YKEjTwX



This CDC guideline offers clarity on recommendations based on the most recent scientific evidence, informed by expert opinion and stakeholder and public input. Scientific research has identified high-risk prescribing practices that have contributed to the overdose epidemic (e.g., high-dose prescribing, overlapping opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions, and extended-release/long-acting [ER/LA] opioids for acute pain) (24,33,34). Using guidelines to address problematic prescribing has the potential to optimize care and improve patient safety based on evidence-based practice (28), as well as reverse the cycle of opioid pain medication misuse that contributes to the opioid overdose epidemic.


As identified in the AHRQ-sponsored clinical evidence review, the overall evidence base for the effectiveness and risks of long-term opioid therapy is low in quality per the GRADE criteria. Thus, contextual evidence is needed to provide information about the benefits and harms of nonpharmacologic and nonopioid pharmacologic therapy and the epidemiology of opioid pain medication overdose and inform the recommendations. Further, as elucidated by the GRADE Working Group, supplemental information on clinician and patient values and preferences and resource allocation can inform judgments of benefits and harms and be helpful for translating the evidence into recommendations. CDC conducted a contextual evidence review to supplement the clinical evidence review based on systematic searches of the literature. The review focused on the following four areas: effectiveness of nonpharmacologic and nonopioid pharmacologic treatments; benefits and harms related to opioid therapy (including additional studies not included in the clinical evidence review such as studies that evaluated outcomes at any duration or used observational study designs related to specific opioid pain medications, high-dose opioid therapy, co-prescription of opioids with other controlled substances, duration of opioid use, special populations, risk stratification/mitigation approaches, and effectiveness of treatments for addressing potential harms of opioid therapy); clinician and patient values and preferences; and resource allocation. CDC constructed narrative summaries of this contextual evidence and used the information to support the clinical recommendations. More details on methods for the contextual evidence review are provided in the Contextual Evidence Review ( ).


Regarding risk stratification approaches, limited evidence was found regarding benefits and harms. Potential benefits of PDMPs and urine drug testing include the ability to identify patients who might be at higher risk for opioid overdose or opioid use disorder, and help determine which patients will benefit from greater caution and increased monitoring or interventions when risk factors are present. For example, one study found that most fatal overdoses could be identified retrospectively on the basis of two pieces of information, multiple prescribers and high total daily opioid dosage, both important risk factors for overdose (124,146) that are available to prescribers in the PDMP (124). However, limited evaluation of PDMPs at the state level has revealed mixed effects on changes in prescribing and mortality outcomes (28). Potential harms of risk stratification include underestimation of risks of opioid therapy when screening tools are not adequately sensitive, as well as potential overestimation of risk, which could lead to inappropriate clinical decisions.


Experts agreed that for patients not already receiving opioids, clinicians should not initiate opioid treatment with ER/LA opioids and should not prescribe ER/LA opioids for intermittent use. ER/LA opioids should be reserved for severe, continuous pain and should be considered only for patients who have received immediate-release opioids daily for at least 1 week. When changing to an ER/LA opioid for a patient previously receiving a different immediate-release opioid, clinicians should consult product labeling and reduce total daily dosage to account for incomplete opioid cross-tolerance. Clinicians should use additional caution with ER/LA opioids and consider a longer dosing interval when prescribing to patients with renal or hepatic dysfunction because decreased clearance of drugs among these patients can lead to accumulation of drugs to toxic levels and persistence in the body for longer durations. Although there might be situations in which clinicians need to prescribe immediate-release and ER/LA opioids together (e.g., transitioning patients from ER/LA opioids to immediate-release opioids by temporarily using lower dosages of both), in general, avoiding the use of immediate-release opioids in combination with ER/LA opioids is preferable, given potentially increased risk and diminishing returns of such an approach for chronic pain.


12. Clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment (usually medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone in combination with behavioral therapies) for patients with opioid use disorder (recommendation category: A, evidence type: 2).


If clinicians suspect opioid use disorder based on patient concerns or behaviors or on findings in prescription drug monitoring program data (see Recommendation 9) or from urine drug testing (see Recommendation 10), they should discuss their concern with their patient and provide an opportunity for the patient to disclose related concerns or problems. Clinicians should assess for the presence of opioid use disorder using DSM-5 criteria (20). Alternatively, clinicians can arrange for a substance use disorder treatment specialist to assess for the presence of opioid use disorder. For patients meeting criteria for opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange for patients to receive evidence-based treatment, usually medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone maintenance therapy in combination with behavioral therapies. Oral or long-acting injectable naltrexone, a long-acting opioid antagonist, can also be used in non-pregnant adults. Naltrexone blocks the effects of opioids if they are used but requires adherence to daily oral therapy or monthly injections. For pregnant women with opioid use disorder, medication-assisted therapy with buprenorphine (without naloxone) or methadone has been associated with improved maternal outcomes and should be offered (see Recommendation 8). Clinicians should also consider offering naloxone for overdose prevention to patients with opioid use disorder (see Recommendation 8). For patients with problematic opioid use that does not meet criteria for opioid use disorder, experts noted that clinicians can offer to taper and discontinue opioids (see Recommendation 7). For patients who choose to but are unable to taper, clinicians may reassess for opioid use disorder and offer opioid agonist therapy if criteria are met.


Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is "the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients".[1] The aim of EBM is to integrate the experience of the clinician, the values of the patient, and the best available scientific information to guide decision-making about clinical management. The term was originally used to describe an approach to teaching the practice of medicine and improving decisions by individual physicians about individual patients.[2]


The term 'evidence-based medicine' was introduced slightly later, in the context of medical education. In the autumn of 1990, Gordon Guyatt used it in an unpublished description of a program at McMaster University for prospective or new medical students.[29] Guyatt and others first published the term two years later (1992) to describe a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine.[2]


In 1996, David Sackett and colleagues clarified the definition of this tributary of evidence-based medicine as "the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. ... [It] means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research."[1] This branch of evidence-based medicine aims to make individual decision making more structured and objective by better reflecting the evidence from research.[30][31] Population-based data are applied to the care of an individual patient,[32] while respecting the fact that practitioners have clinical expertise reflected in effective and efficient diagnosis and thoughtful identification and compassionate use of individual patients' predicaments, rights, and preferences.[1]


Between 1993 and 2000, the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group at McMaster University published the methods to a broad physician audience in a series of 25 "Users' Guides to the Medical Literature" in JAMA. In 1995 Rosenberg and Donald defined individual-level, evidence-based medicine as "the process of finding, appraising, and using contemporaneous research findings as the basis for medical decisions."[33] In 2010, Greenhalgh used a definition that emphasized quantitative methods: "the use of mathematical estimates of the risk of benefit and harm, derived from high-quality research on population samples, to inform clinical decision-making in the diagnosis, investigation or management of individual patients."[34][1]


There are a number of limitations and criticisms of evidence-based medicine.[73][74][75] Two widely cited categorization schemes for the various published critiques of EBM include the three-fold division of Straus and McAlister ("limitations universal to the practice of medicine, limitations unique to evidence-based medicine and misperceptions of evidence-based-medicine")[76] and the five-point categorization of Cohen, Stavri and Hersh (EBM is a poor philosophic basis for medicine, defines evidence too narrowly, is not evidence-based, is limited in usefulness when applied to individual patients, or reduces the autonomy of the doctor/patient relationship).[77] 041b061a72


About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...
Group Page: Groups_SingleGroup
bottom of page