BACKGROUND: The objective of this document is to provide recommendations on the formal reliability of major clinical predictors often associated with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) neuroprognostication.
METHODS: A narrative systematic review was completed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology and the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Timing, Setting questions. Predictors, which included both individual clinical variables and prediction models, were selected based on clinical relevance and attention in the literature. Following construction of the evidence profile and summary of findings, recommendations were based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. Good practice statements addressed essential principles of neuroprognostication that could not be framed in the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Timing, Setting format.
RESULTS: Six candidate clinical variables and two clinical grading scales (the original ICH score and maximally treated ICH score) were selected for recommendation creation. A total of 347 articles out of 10,751 articles screened met our eligibility criteria. Consensus statements of good practice included deferring neuroprognostication-aside from the most clinically devastated patients-for at least the first 48-72 h of intensive care unit admission; understanding what outcomes would have been most valued by the patient; and counseling of patients and surrogates whose ultimate neurological recovery may occur over a variable period of time. Although many clinical variables and grading scales are associated with ICH poor outcome, no clinical variable alone or sole clinical grading scale was suggested by the panel as currently being reliable by itself for use in counseling patients with ICH and their surrogates, regarding functional outcome at 3 months and beyond or 30-day mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines provide recommendations on the formal reliability of predictors of poor outcome in the context of counseling patients with ICH and surrogates and suggest broad principles of neuroprognostication. Clinicians formulating their judgments of prognosis for patients with ICH should avoid anchoring bias based solely on any one clinical variable or published clinical grading scale.

The terms control and remission and other key terms used in chronic urticaria (CU) such as flare-up, relapse, exacerbation, and recurrence have not been fully defined in the literature. Disease monitoring and treatment goals in clinical practice are not well established. After a qualitative appraisal of available evidence, we aimed to find a consensus definition of control and remission, clarify key terminology, provide guidance on how to monitor the disease, and establish treatment goals in clinical practice. A modified Delphi consensus approach was used. Based on a literature review, a scientific committee provided 137 statements addressing controversial definitions and terms, available patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and recommendations on how to measure therapeutic objectives in CU. The questionnaire was evaluated by 138 expert allergists and dermatologists. A consensus was reached on 105 out of the 137 proposed items (76.6%). The experts agreed that complete control and remission of CU could be defined as the absence of signs or symptoms while on treatment and in the absence of treatment, respectively. Consensus was not reached on the definition of other key terms such as flare-up, exacerbation, and recurrence. The panel agreed that the objective of therapy in CU should be to achieve complete control. PROs that define the degree of control (complete, good, partial, or absence) were established. An algorithm for disease assessment is provided. In conclusion, this work offers consensus definitions and tools that may be useful in the management of patients with CU.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are systematically developed statements to assist practitioners and patient to reach appropriate health-care decisions. The synthesis and translation of a large amount of evidence into practice recommendations should ultimately reduce the use of unnecessary or harmful interventions, help patients to achieve maximum benefit, and minimize risk, all at an acceptable cost.In the past, CPGs were developed based on expert opinion, and using consensus methodology either formally or informally. Over the last 30 years, the evolution of increasingly transparent and robust methodology has led to more \"evidence-based\" recommendations. Clinical practice guidelines should be developed within the principles of bias minimization, systematic evidence retrieval and review, and a focus on patient relevant outcomes. Multiple nationally based and international groups now have published specific guidance for the development, dissemination, and evaluation of CPG.This chapter describes the key principles of CPG development, including the importance of updating, disseminating, and evaluating the impact of CPG , and attempts to differentiate CPG intended for populations of patients from \"evidence-based decision making\" for individual patients, recognizing that the fundamental principles are the same.

BACKGROUND: Revision knee replacement (KR) is both challenging for the surgical team and expensive for the healthcare provider. Limited high quality evidence is available to guide decision-making.
OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines for surgeons and units delivering revision KR services.
METHODS: A formal consensus process was followed by BASK\'s Revision Knee Working Group, which included surgeons from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This was supported by analysis of National Joint Registry data.
RESULTS: There are a large number of surgeons operating at NHS sites who undertake a small number of revision KR procedures. To optimise patient outcomes and deliver cost-effective care high-volume revision knee surgeons working at high volume centres should undertake revision KR. This document outlines practice guidelines for units providing a revision KR service and sets out: The current landscape of revision KR in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Service organisation within a network model. The necessary infrastructure required to provide a sustainable revision service. Outcome metrics and auditable standards. Financial mechanisms to support this service model.
CONCLUSIONS: Revision KR patients being treated in the NHS should be provided with the best care available. This report sets out a framework to both guide and support revision KR surgeons and centres to achieve this aim.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a minimum Adult Oral Health Standard Set (AOHSS) for use in clinical practice, research, advocacy and population health.
METHODS: An international oral health working group (OHWG) was established, of patient advocates, researchers, clinicians and public health experts to develop an AOHSS. PubMed was searched for oral health clinical and patient-reported measures and case-mix variables related to caries and periodontal disease. The selected patient-reported outcome measures focused on general oral health, and oral health-related quality of life tools. A consensus was reached via Delphi with parallel consultation of subject matter content experts. Finally, comments and input were elicited from oral health stakeholders globally, including patients/consumers.
RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1,453 results. After inclusion/exclusion criteria, 959 abstracts generated potential outcomes and case-mix variables. Delphi rounds resulted in a consensus-based selection of 80 individual items capturing 31 outcome and case-mix concepts. Global reviews generated 347 responses from 87 countries, and the patient/consumer validation survey elicited 129 responses. This AOHSS includes 25 items directed towards patients (including demographics, the impact of their oral health on oral function, a record of pain and oral hygiene practices, and financial implications of care) and items for clinicians to complete, including medical history, a record of caries and periodontal disease activity, and types of dental treatment delivered.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, utilising a robust methodology, a standardised core set of oral health outcome measures for adults, with a particular emphasis on caries and periodontal disease, was developed.

In an effort, to curtail rising health care costs, government and private payers have begun to focus on measuring quality of care. Along with quality improvement initiatives, clinical practice guidelines may also be utilized to provide better care. Clinical practice guidelines are recommendations for clinicians about the care of patients with specific conditions. This review provides an overview of clinical practice guidelines and quality improvement initiatives to highlight strategies to optimize patient outcomes.

The association between patient-reported experience of care and care quality is not well described. The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between the patient-reported experience and receipt of guideline-concordant colon cancer (CC) treatment.
Medicare beneficiaries with resected stage I-III CC (2003-2013) were identified in the linked SEER Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems data set. Patient-reported scores were compared by receipt of guideline concordant care (GCC) (resection of ≥ 12 lymph nodes [stage I-III] and adjuvant chemotherapy [stage III]). Linear mixed-effects regression was performed to compare adjusted mean patient experience scores by GCC.
Of the 1,010 identified patients, 58.4% of stage I (n = 192/329) and 73.4% of stage II (n = 298/406) patients underwent resection of ≥ 12 LN. Among stage III patients, 76.0% (n = 209/275) underwent resection of ≥ 12 lymph node and 52.4% (n = 144/275) received adjuvant chemotherapy. By multivariable analysis, patient-reported scores of healthcare quality, physicians, physician communication, getting needed care, and getting care quickly were similar among patients who received GCC compared with those who did not. However, mean scores of overall healthcare quality (91.3 v 82.4, P = .0004) and getting needed care (92.8 v 86.8, P = .047) were higher among stage III patients who received GCC compared with those who did not.
Patient-reported scores of healthcare quality and ability to get needed care are associated with GCC among elderly patients with stage III CC. Further investigation is needed to determine whether patient-reported experience correlates with other clinical measures of quality of CC care.

To develop an Overall Pediatric Health Standard Set (OPH-SS) of outcome measures that captures what matters to young people and their families and recognising the biopsychosocial aspects of health for all children and adolescents regardless of health condition.
A modified Delphi process.
The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement convened an international Working Group (WG) comprised of 23 international experts from 12 countries in the field of paediatrics, family medicine, psychometrics as well as patient advisors. The WG participated in 11 video-conferences, through a modified Delphi process and 9 surveys between March 2018 and January 2020 consensus was reached on a final recommended health outcome standard set. By a literature review conducted in March 2018, 1136 articles were screened for clinician and patient-reported or proxy-reported outcomes. Further, 4315 clinical trials and 12 paediatric health surveys were scanned. Between November 2019 and January 2020, the final standard set was endorsed by a patient validation (n=270) and a health professional (n=51) survey.
From a total of 63 identified outcomes, consensus was formed on a standard set of outcome measures that comprises 10 patient-reported outcomes, 5 clinician-reported measures, and 6 case-mix variables. The four developmental age-specific packages (ie, 0-5, 6-12, 13-17, 18-24 years) include either five or six measures with an average time for completion of 20 min.
The OPH-SS is a starting point to drive value-based paediatric healthcare delivery from a global perspective for enhancing child and adolescent physical health and psychosocial well-being.

The inconsistency in outcomes reported and lack of patient-reported outcomes across trials in children with chronic kidney disease (CKD) limits shared decision making. As part of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG)-Kids initiative, we aimed to generate a consensus-based prioritized list of critically important outcomes to be reported in all trials in children with CKD.
An online 2-round Delphi survey in English, French, and Hindi languages.
Patients (aged 8-21 years), caregivers/family, and health care professionals (HCPs) rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9 indicating critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale.
We assessed the absolute and relative importance of outcomes. Comments were analyzed thematically.
557 participants (72 [13%] patients, 132 [24%] caregivers, and 353 [63%] HCPs) from 48 countries completed round 1 and 312 (56%) participants (28 [40%] patients, 64 [46%] caregivers, and 220 [56%] HCPs) completed round 2. Five outcomes were common in the top 10 for each group: mortality, kidney function, life participation, blood pressure, and infection. Caregivers and HCPs rated cardiovascular disease higher than patients. Patients gave lower ratings to all outcomes compared with caregivers/HCPs except they rated life participation (round 2 mean difference, 0.1), academic performance (0.1), mobility (0.4), and ability to travel (0.4) higher than caregivers and rated ability to travel (0.4) higher than HCPs. We identified 3 themes: alleviating disease and treatment burden, focusing on the whole child, and resolving fluctuating and conflicting goals.
Most participants completed the survey in English.
Mortality, life participation, kidney function, and blood pressure were consistently highly prioritized by patients, caregivers, and HCPs. Patients gave higher priority to some lifestyle-related outcomes compared with caregivers/HCPs. Establishing critically important outcomes for all trials in children with CKD may improve consistent reporting of survival, kidney health, and clinical and life impact outcomes that are meaningful for decision making.

BACKGROUND: Measuring patient-centered outcomes in clinical practice is valuable for monitoring patients and advancing real-world research. A new initiative from the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) group aims to recommend what might be recorded for atopic eczema patients in routine clinical care.
OBJECTIVE: Prioritize outcome domains to measure atopic eczema in clinical practice and select valid and practical outcome measurement instruments for the highest-priority domain.
METHODS: An online survey of HOME members identified and ranked 21 possible health domains. Suitable instruments were then selected for the top-prioritized domain at the HOME VI meeting, using established consensus processes informed by systematic reviews of instrument quality.
RESULTS: Patient-reported symptoms was the top-prioritized domain. In accordance with psychometric properties and feasibility, there was consensus that the recommended instruments to measure atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice are the POEM, the PO-SCORAD index, or both. The numeric rating scale for itch received support pending definition and validation in atopic eczema.
CONCLUSIONS: Following the first step of the HOME Clinical Practice initiative, we endorse using the POEM, the PO-SCORAD index, or both for measuring atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice. Additional high-priority domains for clinical practice will be assessed at subsequent HOME meetings.