FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2027966625> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2027966625 endingPage "219" @default.
• W2027966625 startingPage "218" @default.
• W2027966625 abstract "The recent article and editorial regarding the use of a proprietary Decision Support Tool extolled the need to quit memorizing data, favoring medical interactive applications in applying medical knowledge.1,2 The Decision Support Tool was designed to increase adherence to an outdated yet still “current” 2007 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association perioperative evaluation consensus guideline (PECG). It is clear that perioperative β blockade (PBB) and cost containment played a very large role in the underlying assumptions of that guideline. It is also clear that in 2008, the POISE study (PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation trial [ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182039]) completely transformed the premise of PBB, finding PBB stroke morbidity outweighed any cardiac morbidity prevention. PBB guideline revisions followed rapidly in 2009, without corresponding PECG changes. Furthermore, the reporting of Dr. Poldermans ethical violations, as a world proponent of PBB, further publically raised significant questions undermining the 2007 PECG validity. Cardiac guidelines experience particularly rapid turnover for multiple reasons.* Medical reversal is a rapidly emerging reality, indicating guidelines have limits to application, as well as potentially short shelf-lives, as PBB clearly demonstrated.3 This may directly compromise the usage of any Decision Support Tool, especially if failing to update rapidly while physician’s life-long learning does facilitate updates.Assuming the PECG is “correct” in 2014, is a fundamental problem. Similarly, testing “correct answers” based on a Decision Support Tool adhering to the 2007 PECG, presents simply a false premise for contemporary knowledge. The guideline should also fit the patient and not vice versa. I would ask the researchers to publish their “defined as correct” answers to the already published questions, to facilitate assessment whether these answers are deemed correct by modern readers! Knowledgeable physicians may justifiably reject the guideline and the proposed “Correct” answers in modern practice, especially when tailored to the variable contemporary reality at hand (i.e., University vs. rural hospital). External realities further impose, where patients produce satisfaction scores and see themselves deserving EVERY consideration, test and therapy, regardless of cost, when rare complications produce 100% morbidity and mortality to them personally as “rare events.” The editorial goes even further, promoting the unproven utility of recertification. Similarly, transferring simulation and objective structured clinical examination applications for medical student/resident educations onto Recertification testing of practicing and competent physicians is yet another unproven leap of faith. Board certification, and especially recertification, have never been proven or demonstrated to clearly improve quality in care in outcome-based studies.The real problem emphasized by both study and editorial, is that while both support the use of internet-based data acquisition in daily medical practice, certification, and recertification tests forbid it completely. Similar to old guidelines, simply believing that “certification or recertification matters,” may also be a mere historical relic, proprietary advertisement and/or simple false legacy assumption, having emerged before modern licensure and extensive regulation of residency training programs.4 These and other concerns have led to the significant opposition to maintenance of certification among physicians at large. It is time for an open discussion of the risks and benefits of the cost and unproven assumptions of recertification and maintenance of certification, as a Quality = Value/cost indicator. Blind, computerized, adherence to aging guidelines, however, requires short-term revalidation of underlying programs to insure patient safety.The author declares no competing interests." @default.
• W2027966625 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2027966625 creator A5056577855 @default.
• W2027966625 date "2015-01-01" @default.
• W2027966625 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2027966625 title "Old Guidelines or Methods Cannot Insure Quality or Progress" @default.
• W2027966625 cites W2042369544 @default.
• W2027966625 cites W2045613329 @default.
• W2027966625 cites W2166888237 @default.
• W2027966625 cites W2333938277 @default.
• W2027966625 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0000000000000492" @default.
• W2027966625 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25611664" @default.
• W2027966625 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2027966625 type Work @default.
• W2027966625 sameAs 2027966625 @default.
• W2027966625 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2027966625 countsByYear W20279666252015 @default.
• W2027966625 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2027966625 hasAuthorship W2027966625A5056577855 @default.
• W2027966625 hasBestOaLocation W20279666251 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConcept C107327155 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConcept C124101348 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConcept C2778023277 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConcept C2780182762 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConcept C30038468 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConcept C31174226 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConcept C63527458 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConceptScore W2027966625C107327155 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConceptScore W2027966625C124101348 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConceptScore W2027966625C138885662 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConceptScore W2027966625C141071460 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConceptScore W2027966625C142724271 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConceptScore W2027966625C15744967 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConceptScore W2027966625C177713679 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConceptScore W2027966625C180747234 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConceptScore W2027966625C2778023277 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConceptScore W2027966625C2780182762 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConceptScore W2027966625C30038468 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConceptScore W2027966625C31174226 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConceptScore W2027966625C41008148 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConceptScore W2027966625C41895202 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConceptScore W2027966625C63527458 @default.
• W2027966625 hasConceptScore W2027966625C71924100 @default.
• W2027966625 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2027966625 hasLocation W20279666251 @default.
• W2027966625 hasLocation W20279666252 @default.
• W2027966625 hasOpenAccess W2027966625 @default.
• W2027966625 hasPrimaryLocation W20279666251 @default.
• W2027966625 hasRelatedWork W191788953 @default.
• W2027966625 hasRelatedWork W2068259653 @default.
• W2027966625 hasRelatedWork W2094907668 @default.
• W2027966625 hasRelatedWork W2161458909 @default.
• W2027966625 hasRelatedWork W2406865406 @default.
• W2027966625 hasRelatedWork W2416846005 @default.
• W2027966625 hasRelatedWork W2419378857 @default.
• W2027966625 hasRelatedWork W2902587822 @default.
• W2027966625 hasRelatedWork W3110017478 @default.
• W2027966625 hasRelatedWork W322779243 @default.
• W2027966625 hasVolume "122" @default.
• W2027966625 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2027966625 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2027966625 magId "2027966625" @default.
• W2027966625 workType "article" @default.