Recommendations
Tests, treatments, and procedures for healthcare providers and consumers to question
Australia's peak health professional colleges, societies and associations have developed lists of recommendations of the tests, treatments, and procedures that healthcare providers and consumers should question.
Each recommendation is based on the latest available evidence. Importantly, they are not prescriptive but are intended as guidance to start a conversation about what is appropriate and necessary.
As each situation is unique, healthcare providers and consumers should use the recommendations to collaboratively formulate an appropriate healthcare plan together.
Agitation
Pharmaceutical Society of Australia
Visit page
How this list was made
A working party of members of the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia (PSA) was established. Members of the State and Territory Branch Committees were invited to contribute suggested recommendations. Over 40 recommendations were submitted. The working party grouped the recommendations into themes, eliminated ones that were out of scope, reduced the list to twelve and refined the wording. All PSA members were sent an online survey to rank the proposed recommendations, indicate how likely they would be to implement the recommendations in practice, and suggest additional items for consideration.
Based on the survey responses, six recommendations were shortlisted and supporting evidence gathered. The final list was signed off by the PSA Board in November 2018.
Note: PSA uses Vancouver reference style. Where there are more than three authors, only the first three are listed followed by et al.
Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine
Visit page
How this list was made
Members of the Australian & New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine completed an online survey asking them to choose the 5 most relevant ‘low value’ practices from a list of 11. Respondents were also asked to nominate any additional practices which they regarded as overused, inappropriate or of limited effectiveness in the specialty of geriatric medicine. A total of 196 responses were received.
The list of items were then subject to consideration by the Federal Council. Specifically, members of Federal Council were asked to rate each of these 16 items in terms of their strength in meeting 7 criteria: Is there a reasonable evidence base upon which to drive change? Are older people likely to benefit from work we might do to change practice? Is the problem sizeable? Are there opportunities and a willingness within geriatric medicine to lead practice change? Are there opportunities to collaborate with other organisations with a shared interest in the area? Will this promote a positive profile for ANZSGM? Is this an area of potential conflict with other Societies?
Based on the ratings they assigned to these items the ‘Top 5’ list items were chosen and reformulated as recommendations for clinicians.