The case for and against evidence-based guidelines

Media Release
7 June 2012

The case for and against evidence-based guidelines

The latest issue of the Journal of Primary Health Care debates the role of evidence-based guidelines in improved health outcomes for general practice patients, says Editor Prof. Felicity Goodyear-Smith.

“This debate is very topical, given the demise in April of the Guidelines Group whose role was to lead the health and disability sector in driving the effective use of reliable evidence. It’s unclear what will replace the Guidelines Group, but busy GPs do need summaries of the latest research evidence in some form,” says Prof. Goodyear-Smith.

“In the June Journal’s Back to Back section, Dr Jim Vause argues the case for general practice adhering to evidence-based guidelines as a means of inevitable improvement in health outcomes for patients.

“Dr Vause states the need for a systematic process in evaluating research and other evidence and summarising it in clinical recommendations that are useful and practical for doctors in their everyday work. He also acknowledges that proving health outcomes for patients are better as a result of evidence-based practice is difficult and that we need to consider the whole heath system and how it uses evidence, not just the individual doctor.

“On the flipside, Dr Dee Mangin argues that adhering to guidelines is meaningfully worse for health outcomes. This is due to the quality of the evidence which she argues is often weak, the quality of the available research data that underpins the guidelines and their unfitness for purpose in primary care.

“It’s a fascinating debate and one that I hope others in the health sector will have.”

The Journal of Primary Health Care is published by The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners quarterly. The June issue is available on their website at www.rnzcgp.org.nz/journal-of-primary-health-care

ENDS

© Scoop Media