Multidisciplinary Guideline Development Group Research Articles

2018 Chinese guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

To develop a new evidence-based diagnosis, treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in China.A multidisciplinary guideline development group was established. The grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system was used to rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Recommendations were derived from evidence body, the balance of benefits and harmsand patient's values and preferences.The guideline development group developed 10 recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of RA. The guideline covered the classification criteria, disease activity monitoring and assessing, antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids with treat-to-target approach of RA.This rheumatoid arthritis guideline was intended to serve as a tool for clinicians and patients for best decisions-making in China.

A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Spinal Cord Injury: Recommendations on the Type and Timing of Rehabilitation.

Introduction:The objective of this study is to develop guidelines that outline the appropriate type and timing of rehabilitation in patients with acute spinal cord injury (SCI).Methods:A systematic review of the literature was conducted to address key questions related to rehabilitation in patients with acute SCI. A multidisciplinary guideline development group used this information, and their clinical expertise, to develop recommendations for the type and timing of rehabilitation. Based on GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation), a strong recommendation is worded as “we recommend,” whereas a weaker recommendation is indicated by “we suggest.Results:Based on the findings from the systematic review, our recommendations were: (1) We suggest rehabilitation be offered to patients with acute spinal cord injury when they are medically stable and can tolerate required rehabilitation intensity (no included studies; expert opinion); (2) We suggest body weight–supported treadmill training as an option for ambulation training in addition to conventional overground walking, dependent on resource availability, context, and local expertise (low evidence); (3) We suggest that individuals with acute and subacute cervical SCI be offered functional electrical stimulation as an option to improve hand and upper extremity function (low evidence); and (4) Based on the absence of any clear benefit, we suggest not offering additional training in unsupported sitting beyond what is currently incorporated in standard rehabilitation (low evidence).Conclusions:These guidelines should be implemented into clinical practice to improve outcomes and reduce morbidity in patients with SCI by promoting standardization of care, decreasing the heterogeneity of management strategies and encouraging clinicians to make evidence-informed decisions.

Guidelines for the Management of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy and Spinal Cord Injury: An Introduction to a Focus Issue.

Study Design:Introduction to a guidelines project.Objectives:The objective of this focus issue is to present guidelines that outline how to best manage patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and spinal cord injury (SCI). Topics addressed in this focus issue include: 1) management strategies for patients with mild, moderate and severe DCM; and 2a) timing of surgical decompression; b) the use of methylprednisolone sodium succinate; c) the type and timing of anticoagulation strategies; d) the role of magnetic resonance imaging in clinical decision making and outcome prediction; and e) the type and timing of rehabilitation in patients with SCI.Methods:Systematic reviews were conducted to address key clinical questions and to synthesize the current body of evidence. A multidisciplinary guideline development group used the results of these reviews, along with their clinical expertise, to develop clinical practice guidelines, in a process that adhered to methodology proposed by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group.Results:The multidisciplinary guideline development group combined the systematic review findings with their clinical expertise and opinions to formulate recommendations on how to manage patients with DCM and SCI.Conclusions:These guidelines will serve as tools to assist clinicians in their decision making by offering a perspective that combines the available evidence, expertise from a variety of clinicians, and patient values.

A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Spinal Cord Injury: Recommendations on the Role of Baseline Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Clinical Decision Making and Outcome Prediction.

Introduction:The objective of this guideline is to outline the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in clinical decision making and outcome prediction in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI).Methods:A systematic review of the literature was conducted to address key questions related to the use of MRI in patients with traumatic SCI. This review focused on longitudinal studies that controlled for baseline neurologic status. A multidisciplinary Guideline Development Group (GDG) used this information, their clinical expertise, and patient input to develop recommendations on the use of MRI for SCI patients. Based on GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation), a strong recommendation is worded as “we recommend,” whereas a weaker recommendation is indicated by “we suggest.”Results:Based on the limited available evidence and the clinical expertise of the GDG, our recommendations were: (1) “We suggest that MRI be performed in adult patients with acute SCI prior to surgical intervention, when feasible, to facilitate improved clinical decision-making” (quality of evidence, very low) and (2) “We suggest that MRI should be performed in adult patients in the acute period following SCI, before or after surgical intervention, to improve prediction of neurologic outcome” (quality of evidence, low).Conclusions:These guidelines should be implemented into clinical practice to improve outcomes and prognostication for patients with SCI.

A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Patients With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Recommendations for Patients With Mild, Moderate, and Severe Disease and Nonmyelopathic Patients With Evidence of Cord Compression.

Study Design:Guideline development.Objectives:The objective of this study is to develop guidelines that outline how to best manage (1) patients with mild, moderate, and severe myelopathy and (2) nonmyelopathic patients with evidence of cord compression with or without clinical symptoms of radiculopathy.Methods:Five systematic reviews of the literature were conducted to synthesize evidence on disease natural history; risk factors of disease progression; the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of nonoperative and surgical management; the impact of preoperative duration of symptoms and myelopathy severity on treatment outcomes; and the frequency, timing, and predictors of symptom development. A multidisciplinary guideline development group used this information, and their clinical expertise, to develop recommendations for the management of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM).Results:Our recommendations were as follows: (1) “We recommend surgical intervention for patients with moderate and severe DCM.” (2) “We suggest offering surgical intervention or a supervised trial of structured rehabilitation for patients with mild DCM. If initial nonoperative management is pursued, we recommend operative intervention if there is neurological deterioration and suggest operative intervention if the patient fails to improve.” (3) “We suggest not offering prophylactic surgery for non-myelopathic patients with evidence of cervical cord compression without signs or symptoms of radiculopathy. We suggest that these patients be counseled as to potential risks of progression, educated about relevant signs and symptoms of myelopathy, and be followed clinically.” (4) “Non-myelopathic patients with cord compression and clinical evidence of radiculopathy with or without electrophysiological confirmation are at a higher risk of developing myelopathy and should be counselled about this risk. We suggest offering either surgical intervention or nonoperative treatment consisting of close serial follow-up or a supervised trial of structured rehabilitation. In the event of myelopathic development, the patient should be managed according to the recommendations above.”Conclusions:These guidelines will promote standardization of care for patients with DCM, decrease the heterogeneity of management strategies and encourage clinicians to make evidence-informed decisions.

A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Spinal Cord Injury and Central Cord Syndrome: Recommendations on the Timing (≤24 Hours Versus >24 Hours) of Decompressive Surgery

Objective:To develop recommendations on the timing of surgical decompression in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) and central cord syndrome.Methods:A systematic review of the literature was conducted to address key relevant questions. A multidisciplinary guideline development group used this information, along with their clinical expertise, to develop recommendations for the timing of surgical decompression in patients with SCI and central cord syndrome. Based on GRADE, a strong recommendation is worded as “we recommend,” whereas a weak recommendation is presented as “we suggest.”Results:Conclusions from the systematic review included (1) isolated studies reported statistically significant and clinically important improvements following early decompression at 6 months and following discharge from inpatient rehabilitation; (2) in one study on acute central cord syndrome without instability, a marginally significant improvement in total motor scores was reported at 6 and 12 months in patients managed with early versus late surgery; and (3) there were no significant differences in length of acute care/rehabilitation stay or in rates of complications between treatment groups. Our recommendations were: “We suggest that early surgery be considered as a treatment option in adult patients with traumatic central cord syndrome” and “We suggest that early surgery be offered as an option for adult acute SCI patients regardless of level.” Quality of evidence for both recommendations was considered low.Conclusions:These guidelines should be implemented into clinical practice to improve outcomes in patients with acute SCI and central cord syndrome by promoting standardization of care, decreasing the heterogeneity of management strategies, and encouraging clinicians to make evidence-informed decisions.

A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Spinal Cord Injury: Recommendations on the Use of Methylprednisolone Sodium Succinate.

Introduction:The objective of this guideline is to outline the appropriate use of methylprednisolone sodium succinate (MPSS) in patients with acute spinal cord injury (SCI).Methods:A systematic review of the literature was conducted to address key questions related to the use of MPSS in acute SCI. A multidisciplinary Guideline Development Group used this information, in combination with their clinical expertise, to develop recommendations for the use of MPSS. Based on GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation), a strong recommendation is worded as “we recommend,” whereas a weaker recommendation is indicated by “we suggest.”Results:The main conclusions from the systematic review included the following: (1) there were no differences in motor score change at any time point in patients treated with MPSS compared to those not receiving steroids; (2) when MPSS was administered within 8 hours of injury, pooled results at 6- and 12-months indicated modest improvements in mean motor scores in the MPSS group compared with the control group; and (3) there was no statistical difference between treatment groups in the risk of complications. Our recommendations were: (1) “We suggest not offering a 24-hour infusion of high-dose MPSS to adult patients who present after 8 hours with acute SCI”; (2) “We suggest a 24-hour infusion of high-dose MPSS be offered to adult patients within 8 hours of acute SCI as a treatment option”; and (3) “We suggest not offering a 48-hour infusion of high-dose MPSS to adult patients with acute SCI.”Conclusions:These guidelines should be implemented into clinical practice to improve outcomes and reduce morbidity in SCI patients.

Guidelines for the Management of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy and Acute Spinal Cord Injury: Development Process and Methodology.

The Institute of Medicine defines clinical practice guidelines as “statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options.” Guidelines help clinicians implement best evidence into practice and encourage informed shared decision making with patients. Guidelines are intended to enhance the quality of patient care by discouraging ineffective and potentially harmful interventions and standardizing practice. Standards for the development and appraisal of guidelines, such as those proposed by the Institute of Medicine and other organizations, help assure guideline quality and credibility. Primary standards include establishing transparency, managing conflicts of interest, forming a multidisciplinary guideline development group, conducting methodologically sound systematic reviews, developing evidence-based recommendations, balancing risks and harms, and rating the strength of recommendations based on the confidence in the evidence. Furthermore, the guideline document must be appraised internally and externally and updated when new evidence arises. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation process helps appraise the existing body of evidence as well as provide an interactive framework for weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options and translating evidence to recommendations. This article summarizes the methodology used to develop clinical practice guidelines for the management of degenerative cervical myelopathy and acute spinal cord injury.

Improving management of gout in primary care: a new UK management guideline.

Gout is the most prevalent inflammatory arthritis, affecting 2.5% of adults in the UK.1 Despite its prevalence and the availability of potentially ‘curative’ urate-lowering therapies (ULT) such as allopurinol, gout remains undertreated in both primary and secondary care. Under half of patients receive ULT and many do not have ULT escalated sufficiently to reduce serum uric acid (sUA) below recommended target levels.1 The British Society for Rheumatology and British Health Professionals in Rheumatology (BSR/BHPR) have recently revised their evidence-based guideline for the management of gout,2 first published in 2007.3 The multidisciplinary guideline development group agreed key clinical management questions and undertook a systematic literature review and Delphi process to inform evidence-based consensus management recommendations. These were grouped into three categories: management of acute attacks ( n = 6), modification of lifestyle and risk factors ( n = 5), and optimal use of ULT ( n = 10). The guideline has been reviewed and endorsed by the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP). For acute attacks of gout, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) (with gastro-protection) or low-dose colchicine 500 mcg two to four times daily are recommended as first-line treatment, depending on patient preference, renal function, and comorbidities. In patients who are intolerant of, or have contraindications to, NSAIDs and colchicine, intra-articular, intra-muscular, or oral corticosteroids are recommended (for example, oral prednisolone 35 mg daily for 5 days). Patients should be advised to treat attacks as soon as possible after onset to minimise severity and impact. Non-pharmacological …

Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines for integrative medicine in China: A systematic review.

To assess the quality of integrative medicine clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published before 2014. A systematic search of the scientific literature published before 2014 was conducted to select integrative medicine CPGs. Four major Chinese integrated databases and one guideline database were searched: the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), Wanfang Data, and the China Guideline Clearinghouse (CGC). Four reviewers independently assessed the quality of the included guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument. Overall consensus among the reviewers was assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). A total of 41 guidelines published from 2003 to 2014 were included. The overall consensus among the reviewers was good [ICC: 0.928; 95% confifi dence interval (CI): 0.920 to 0.935]. The scores on the 6 AGREE domains were: 17% for scope and purpose (range: 6% to 32%), 11% for stakeholder involvement (range: 0 to 24%), 10% for rigor of development (range: 3% to 22%), 39% for clarity and presentation (range: 25% to 64%), 11% for applicability (range: 4% to 24%), and 1% for editorial independence (range: 0 to 15%). The quality of integrative medicine CPGs was low, the development of integrative medicine CPGs should be guided by systematic methodology. More emphasis should be placed on multi-disciplinary guideline development groups, quality of evidence, management of funding and conflfl icts of interest, and guideline updates in the process of developing integrative medicine CPGs in China.

181 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Spinal Cord Injury

Abstract The objective of this study is to develop guidelines that outline the optimal timing of decompression in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) and central cord syndrome. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to address the following key questions: (1) What is the efficacy of early decompression (=24 hours) compared with late decompression (>24 hours) based on clinically important change in neurological status? (2) Does timing of decompression influence functional or administrative outcomes? (3) What is the safety profile of early decompression compared with late decompression? (4) What is the evidence that early decompression has differential efficacy or safety in subpopulations? (5) What is the comparative cost-effectiveness of early vs late decompression? A multidisciplinary guideline development group used this information, in combination with their clinical expertise, to develop recommendations for the optimal timing of SCI. The benefits and harms, financial impact, acceptability, feasibility, and patient preferences of each recommendation were carefully considered. The main conclusions from the systematic review included: (1) patients decompressed early were more likely to exhibit clinical improvement in neurological status at 6 months (cervical only) and at discharge from inpatient rehabilitation (all levels); (2) patients treated early for central cord achieved significantly greater improvements in neurological and functional status than those decompressed late; (3) there were no significant differences in length of acute care/rehabilitation stay or in rates of complications between treatment groups. Our recommendations included: We suggest that early surgery be considered as a treatment option in adult patients with traumatic central cord syndrome and We suggest that early surgery be offered as an option for adult acute SCI patients regardless of level. These guidelines should be implemented into clinical practice to improve outcomes and reduce morbidity in patients with SCI by encouraging clinicians to make evidence-informed decisions.

Clinical practice guideline executive summary: Labor after cesarean/planned vaginal birth after cesarean.

Cesarean deliveries are a common surgical procedure in the United States, accounting for 1 in 3 US births. The primary purpose of this guideline is to provide clinicians with evidence to guide planning for labor and vaginal birth after cesarean (LAC/VBAC). A multidisciplinary guideline development group representing family medicine, epidemiology, obstetrics, midwifery, and consumer advocacy used a high quality systematic review by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) as the primary evidence source. The evidence report was updated to include research published through September 2012 with an additional key question on facilities and resources needed for LAC/VBAC. The guideline development group developed recommendations using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel recommended that an individualized assessment of risks and benefits be discussed with pregnant women with a history of 1 or more prior cesarean births who are deciding between a planned LAC/VBAC and a repeat cesarean birth. A planned LAC/VBAC is an appropriate option for most women with a history of prior cesarean birth. Increased access to providers and facilities capable of managing LAC/VBAC are required to reduce the US cesarean rate and associated maternal morbidity while increasing choice for childbearing women and their families.

A patient-centered network approach to multidisciplinary-guideline development: a process evaluation.

BackgroundGuideline development and uptake are still suboptimal; they focus on clinical aspects of diseases rather than on improving the integration of care. We used a patient-centered network approach to develop five harmonized guidelines (one multidisciplinary and four monodisciplinary) around clinical pathways in fertility care. We assessed the feasibility of this approach with a detailed process evaluation of the guideline development, professionals’ experiences, and time invested.MethodsThe network structure comprised the centrally located patients and the steering committee; a multidisciplinary guideline development group (gynecologists, physicians, urologists, clinical embryologists, clinical chemists, a medical psychologist, an occupational physician, and two patient representatives); and four monodisciplinary guideline development groups. The guideline development addressed patient-centered, organizational, and medical-technical key questions derived from interviews with patients and professionals. These questions were elaborated and distributed among the groups. We evaluated the project performance, participants’ perceptions of the approach, and the time needed, including time for analysis of secondary sources, interviews with eight key figures, and a written questionnaire survey among 35 participants.ResultsWithin 20 months, this approach helped us develop a multidisciplinary guideline for treating infertility and four related monodisciplinary guidelines for general infertility, unexplained infertility, male infertility, and semen analysis. The multidisciplinary guideline included recommendations for the main medical-technical matters and for organizational and patient-centered issues in clinical care pathways. The project was carried out as planned except for minor modifications and three extra consensus meetings. The participants were enthusiastic about the approach, the respect for autonomy, the project coordinator’s role, and patient involvement. Suggestions for improvement included timely communication about guideline formats, the timeline, participants’ responsibilities, and employing a librarian and more support staff. The 35 participants spent 4497 hours in total on this project.ConclusionsThe novel patient-centered network approach is feasible for simultaneously and collaboratively developing a harmonized set of multidisciplinary and monodisciplinary guidelines around clinical care pathways for patients with fertility problems. Further research is needed to compare the efficacy of this approach with more traditional approaches.

Methodik und Umsetzung der Qualitätsmessung im Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie

The German Guideline Programme in Oncology (GGPO) is a joint initiative between the German Cancer Society, the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany and German Cancer Aid. In accordance with the aims of the German National Cancer Plan, the GGPO supports the systematic development of high-quality guidelines. To enhance implementation and evaluation, the suggestion of performance measures (PMs) derived from guideline recommendations following a standardised methodology is obligatory within the GGPO. For this purpose, PM teams are convened representing the multidisciplinary guideline development groups including clinical experts, methodologists and patient representatives as well as those organisations that take an active part in and share responsibility for documentation and quality improvement, i.e., clinical cancer registries, certified cancer centres and, if appropriate, the institution responsible for external quality assurance according to the German Social Code (SGB). The primary selection criteria for PMs include strength of the underlying recommendation (strong, grade A), existing potential for improvement of care and measurability. The premises of data economy and standardised documentation are taken into account. Between May 2008 and July 2014, 12 guidelines with suggestions for 100 PMs have been published. The majority of the suggested performance measures is captured by the specific documentation requirements of the clinical cancer registries and certified cancer centres. This creates a solid basis for an active quality management and re-evaluation of the suggested PMs. In addition, the suspension of measures should be considered if improvement has been achieved on a broad scale and for a longer period in order to concentrate on a quality-oriented, economic documentation.

036 Development of A Statewide Guidelines Program Using The ADAPTE Framework

BackgroundThe legislature passed comprehensive health reform legislation in 2009 directing the state to “set standards for safe and effective care”, including development of “best practice guidelines and standards that can...

022 Developing guidelines and quality indicators simultaneously: effects on guideline content and implications on the guideline development process

BackgroundThe German Guideline programme in Oncology (GGPO) funds and supports the development, implementation and evaluation of evidence based guidelines. An essential part of the programme is the development of quality...

A multidisciplinary evidence-based guideline for minimally invasive surgery: part 2—laparoscopic port instruments, trocar site closure, and electrosurgical techniques

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is practiced by different surgical disciplines applying similar basic techniques. In 2007, the Dutch Health Care inspectorate indicated the need for a guideline including multidisciplinary agreements for MIS aiming towards better patient care and safety. A multidisciplinary guideline development group was founded consisting of general surgeons, gynecologists, an anesthesiologist, and an urologist. All members were authorized by their scientific professional associations. Clinically important aspects were identified and discussed. The best available evidence on these aspects was gathered by systematic review. Recommendations for clinical practice were formulated based on the evidence and a consensus of expert opinion. The guideline was externally reviewed by members of the participating scientific associations and their feedback was integrated. Identified important topics were: laparoscopic entry techniques, intra-abdominal pressure, laparoscopic port instruments, electrosurgical techniques, prevention of trocar site herniation, patient positioning, anesthesiology, perioperative care, patient information, multidisciplinary user consultation, and complication registration. The text of each topic contains an introduction with an explanation of the problem and a summary of the current literature. The current available evidence on safety aspects in minimally invasive surgery is limited. Few conclusions could be deduced from evidence-based data. This underscores the need for larger studies with adequate design and methodology to define conclusions of importance. Above all, the development of this multidisciplinary guideline facilitated a rich discussion, which resulted in a very complete and implementable guideline. This is the second of three papers on the multidisciplinary guideline for minimally invasive surgery, in which we present our literature reviews, conclusions, and practical recommendations for the use of specific port instruments, port site closure, and electrosurgical and ultrasonic techniques.

The Alberta Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Ambassador Program: The Development of a Contextually Relevant, Multidisciplinary Clinical Practice Guideline for Non-specific Low Back Pain: A Review

To describe the development of a contextually relevant multidisciplinary clinical practice guideline (CPG) for non-specific low back pain (LBP) and to discuss its value to the management of LBP and the practice of physiotherapy. To mitigate an identified knowledge gap for Alberta primary-care practitioners in the management of non-specific LBP, a collaborative process was developed to engage multidisciplinary health care providers in designing a primary-care CPG for non-specific LBP. A comprehensive review of published LBP guidelines identified the seven highest-quality CPGs; these were used to inform a multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG) as they developed the CPG. The GDG constructed a CPG for non-specific LBP along with point-of-care decision-support and patient-education tools. The Ambassador Program on Low Back Pain worked with front-line clinicians from across Alberta to review the best available evidence in developing a CPG responsive to the Alberta context. This CPG is intervention specific and provides a wide range of primary-care practitioners with the best available evidence to inform their clinical decisions in managing non-specific LBP.

Synopsis of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Guideline for Prevention of Delirium

Delirium is common, is often underrecognized, and is associated with poor outcomes and high costs. In July 2010, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence released a guideline that addressed diagnosis, prevention, and management of delirium. This synopsis focuses on the main recommendations about prevention of delirium. The National Clinical Guideline Centre developed these guidelines by using standard methodology of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. A multidisciplinary guideline development group posed review questions, discussed evidence, and formulated the recommendations. To underpin the guideline, a technical team from the National Clinical Guideline Centre systematically reviewed and graded pertinent evidence identified from literature searches of studies published in English to August 2009 and performed health economic modeling. Stakeholder and public comment informed guideline development and modifications. Considering prevention a feasible and cost-effective health strategy, the guideline development group made 13 specific recommendations that addressed the stability of the care environment (both the care team and location) and the provision of a multicomponent intervention package tailored for persons at risk for delirium. The multicomponent intervention package included assessment and modification of key clinical factors that may precipitate delirium, including cognitive impairment or disorientation, dehydration or constipation, hypoxia, infection, immobility or limited mobility, several medications, pain, poor nutrition, sensory impairment, and sleep disturbance.

Revision of the Dutch clinical algorithm for assessing patient needs in cardiac rehabilitation based on identified implementation problems

Despite all available evidence of its effectiveness, cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention (CRSP) is still insufficiently implemented in current clinical practice. Based on an analysis of implementation problems, recently the Dutch clinical algorithm for the assessment of patient's CRSP needs was revised. The purpose of this paper is to describe the revision process and its results to improve CRSP guideline implementation. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines manual for conducting guideline revisions was followed. Information on the use of the algorithm in practice was collected from electronic medical records and by conducting semi-structured interviews. Next, an expert advisory group identified the problems for use in daily practice and defined the scope for the revision. A multidisciplinary guideline development group subsequently wrote the revised algorithm. A large variation in assessed patient needs was observed between CRSP clinics. Assessment based on clinical judgement was found to be a source of practice variation and is therefore avoided in the revised algorithm. It was decided to add assessment instruments for anxiety and depression, cardiovascular risk factors, stress, attitude of partner and lifestyle parameters. The Dutch clinical algorithm for assessing patient needs for CRSP was revised using a combination of patient data from routine practice, knowledge from academic experts and experience from field experts. The revised algorithm is a practical tool consisting of assessment instruments to improve CRSP guideline adherence in the Netherlands. This algorithm may also be useful for other Western countries to organize their CRSP needs assessment procedure.