4.5 Review

Lessons learned with Bone Health TeleECHO: making treatment decisions when guidelines conflict

期刊

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
卷 30, 期 12, 页码 2401-2406

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-019-05147-8

关键词

Osteoporosis treatment; Guidelines; Telehealth; Telemedicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinical practice guidelines provide helpful information for managing patients with metabolic bone disease. Good guidelines are based on the best available medical evidence; however, guidelines from different societies can conflict. Additionally, it is not possible for a guideline to anticipate the vast variability of circumstances, comorbidities, previous medical experiences, cultural differences, and preferences in real-world patients. Bone Health TeleECHO is a strategy for sharing knowledge on the care of patients with skeletal diseases through ongoing interactive videoconferences. We report three cases based on those presented at Bone Health TeleECHO, where, through discussion, treatment outside of commonly used guidelines was ultimately recommended. Guidelines developed by different organizations may provide evidence-based or informed recommendations which do not account for the variability of clinical circumstances encountered in the care of individual patients. This highlights the importance of Bone Health TeleECHO, where healthcare professionals can share knowledge, individualize treatment decisions, and improve patient care. Learning objectives At the end of this activity participants should be able to: Distinguish between the onset and off of bisphosphonates versus other medications used in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and how this affects choice of a drug holiday. Understand the limitations of clinical practices guidelines in the care of an individual patient and how interactive video conferencing can assist with decision making. Recognize that patients treated with glucocorticoids at high risk for fracture can benefit from more aggressive interventions for osteoporosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据