Headache is one of the most common clinical complaints and is listed as one of the top 10 disability disorders by the World Health Organization (WHO). For standardizing the diagnosis and treatment of headache and improve the level of clinical diagnosis and treatment of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), on 30 January 2019, China Association of Chinese Medicine officially issued the Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Common Internal Diseases in Chinese Medicine-Headache (T/CACM 1271–2019). The Guidelines were developed following the method process recommended by Technical Requirements for the Revision of TCM Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment Guidelines (pilot edition), and also referring to WHO Handbook for Guideline Development. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was also followed. The protocol was formulated by the guideline project team, which comprised of specialists of TCM encephalopathy, guideline methodologist, patient representative, etc. Question regarding the treatment of headaches in TCM were formulated and 18 most important ones were chosen as PICOs (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes). Comprehensive search and review of the literature were performed and the quality of the evidence was assessed and rated based on certain criteria. Twenty-five recommendations were put forward in the Guidelines through three rounds of expert consensus based on their quality of evidence, in addition to the balance of pros and cons of these interventions, patient preferences and values, and economic factors. It is the first and the only clinical practice guide for Chinese medicine accepted by National Guidelines Clearinghouse in the world.

Background The process of implementation of clinical guidelines i.e. getting guidelines into practice has been extensively reviewed and meta-reviewed from a generic perspective. However, in relation to stroke care, there has been no review of these studies to date, although implementing stroke clinical guidelines is a topic of great interest within the stroke literature. This review aims to identify stroke studies that have addressed adherence to generic and specific stroke care clinical guidelines. Method A computer search was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Systematic Reviews databases. Search terms included those relevant to the implementation of stroke clinical guidelines. We assessed all studies retrieved against specific inclusion criteria and collated only those studies that emphasized adherence to stroke clinical guidelines. Results Eighty-eight articles were selected for further review from 153 articles retrieved. Of those, 27 were studies on adherence to stroke clinical guidelines and were included in this review – 16 were categorized as generic stroke guidelines and 11 were on specific aspects of stroke care. Each category was further divided into studies that assessed adherence to stroke guidelines only and those that intervened to improve adherence. Adherence was generally greater for studies that included an intervention. Specific stroke care guidelines were poorly adhered to compared to generic stroke guidelines but these studies were better at identifying organizational and team barriers to implementation. Most studies conducted audits of patient medical records and a limited number assessed health professionals’ views or used a behavioural framework to assess adherence. Discussion Adherence to stroke guidelines varied in the studies reviewed. Given the evidence that implementation of clinical guidelines in stroke care leads to better quality of care and improved health outcomes for patients, there is a need to increase adherence behaviours of health professionals towards recommended guidelines, in particular for long term stroke care.

Purpose and setting This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to implement clinical guidelines for chronic disease management in primary care in EU Member States. Methods We conducted a systematic review of interventional studies assessing the implementation of clinical guidelines. We searched five databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Eppi-Centre and Clinicaltrials.gov) following a strict Cochrane methodology. We included studies focusing on the management of chronic diseases in adults in primary care. Results A total of 21 studies were found. The implementation strategy was fully effective in only four (19%), partially effective in eight (38%), and not effective in nine (43%). The probability that an intervention would be effective was only slightly higher with multifaceted strategies, compared to single interventions. However, effect size varied across studies; therefore it was not possible to determine the most successful strategy. Only eight studies evaluated the impact on patients’ health and only two of those showed significant improvement, while in five there was an improvement in the process of care which did not translate into an improvement in health outcomes. Only four studies reported any data on the cost of the implementation but none undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis. Only one study presented data on the barriers to the implementation of guidelines, noting a lack of awareness and agreement about clinical guidelines. Conclusion Our results reveal that there are only a few rigorous studies which assess the effectiveness of a strategy to implement clinical guidelines in Europe. Moreover, the results are not consistent in showing which strategy is the most appropriate to facilitate their implementation. Therefore, further research is needed to develop more rigorous studies to evaluate health outcomes associated with the implementation of clinical guidelines; to assess the cost-effectiveness of implementing clinical guidelines; and to investigate the perspective of service users and health service staff.

Introduction Clinical guidelines are advocated to improve the quality of care, especially for chronic diseases. However, the regulatory basis of clinical guidelines, their development, quality control, implementation and use as well as evaluation within countries across the European Union is not systematically known. Methods Using information collected from key informants in each country by means of a structured questionnaire, this mapping exercise illustrates the varied status of guideline production in European Union countries. Results Most European Union countries have an established national, regional or local clinical guideline programme, and a substantial proportion have developed guidelines on the prevention and management of chronic diseases. Several countries have mechanisms in place to ensure the quality of scientific evidence used for the development of guidelines is high and that the process is consistent and transparent. Others are only now taking an interest in guideline development and are taking the first steps towards establishing ways of implementing them. The majority of countries have no legal basis for the development of guidelines and those that have well established systems mostly implement them on a voluntary basis. The process of guideline development varies in its degrees of decentralisation across countries with many different types of organisations taking on this responsibility. There is general acceptance of the value of the instrument developed by the AGREE collaboration for evaluating the methodological robustness of guidelines. However, the extent to which guidelines are implemented in Europe is unknown, as there is no systematic data collection and, in most countries, no structure to enable it. There are few examples of formal evaluations of the development, quality, implementation and use of guidelines. Conclusions Our findings call for renewed efforts to respond to the severe lack of standardized guideline terminology and accessibility as well as rigorous studies to evaluate the relationship between different ways to develop guidelines and their methodological quality, between their quality and the actual implementation and usage, and finally between implementation and health outcomes.