Entries Tagged as technology

Register Today for the AAN’s First Guideline Methodology Conference on June 11

April 16, 2012 · No Comments

 

We are excited to inform our readers of the American Academy of Neurology’s (AAN) first-ever methodology conference, to be held on Monday, June 11, 2012. This one-day event will feature guest speakers and methodologists from the AAN Guideline Development Subcommittee, sharing their experiences, insights, tools, templates, and more. Because a number of readers have expressed a personal interest in learning more about the AAN guideline development processes, we hope that you will consider registering for this event and having the opportunity to visit the AAN’s world headquarters in Minneapolis.

 

Register now for this event.

 

We are charging a nominal $125 nonrefundable registration fee to cover the costs of administration and amenities, which include meals and refreshments to be offered throughout the day. To see the full conference program, please review the attached agenda.

 

We encourage our readers to consider registering for this conference and passing this information along to colleagues. We look forward to an engaging event.

 

No Comments Tags: American Academy of Neurology · evidence-based medicine · guideline · systematic review · technology

Go Paperless for Guideline Document Review

March 08, 2012 · No Comments

 

Today’s post focuses more on the administrative aspects of the AAN physician volunteer guideline review process than on the content of those reviews. The criteria the AAN Guideline Development Subcommittee (GDS) follows for guideline review will be discussed in a future post.

When I started working in guidelines for the AAN in 2005, I learned the system for developing our agenda books for quarterly GDS review meetings. The manuscripts were organized one to a binder tab (the committee often reviews six or more papers during a meeting), and the documents for each manuscript needed to be presented in the order below.

  1. Cover sheet presenting the project title, printed on green paper
  2. Memo to the committee providing information about the manuscript status and the expectations for the committee during this review
  3. Status report providing an author list; indication of whether all conflicts of itnerest were reported; listing of societies with whom the AAN would be collaborating; a timeline of previous project milestones; and a detailed, bulleted list of all comments and requested changes from the previous review, printed on yellow paper
  4. The manuscript itself, with each page numbered, text double-spaced, and the header "Confidential: Not for dissemination, duplication, or citation" included
  5. The evidence tablers and any additional supporting documents

As one can imagine, developing an agenda book, and a cost-effective one at that, was actually quite resource intensive. Not only did I need to have all the manuscripts and supporting documents, but I also needed to produce a mockup of the book and have it professionally printed. Because these books were often 700 pages or longer, the printer would produce a sample copy for my review and approval. Then I would print shipping labels, usually for shipping an 8-lb. package overnight. The printer would develop the book and mail it from the store. I would repeat this process four times per year, costing over $7,500 per year to mock up, proof, print, and ship all the books. 


Here’s a picture of one of the AAN’s largest agenda books. 

 

One of our members said that she did not bring her running shoes in her carry-on luggage because she needed to make space for her agenda book. In 2008, we began to make the transition to paperless agenda books by putting all the agenda materials on a CD and shipping the CD to our committee members. This certainly decreased paper use and cost, but I still had to coordinate with our IT department the actual production of the CDs in our duplicator.

In mid-2009, we found a solution whereby we could move to a paperless guideline reviewing environment and save ourselves time and money. During my attendance at an Adobe conference in Minneapolis in late 2008, I learned about the PDF portfolio. Basically, this is an Adobe Acrobat product that enables the user to bundle a group of documents into one PDF portfolio file that retains all documents’ original properties. It is like a traveling .zip file. So now, I could create a digital portfolio of our agenda book, order the documents the way I want, create folders and so forth, and not have to print anything. And the best part is that Adobe portfolios work the exact same way on Mac and PC platforms. Because the size of these portfolios is larger than most email clients can handle, we use the Dropbox sharing option for our committee members to download the agenda. Here is a sample PDF portfolio that I have created for download to show the functionality.

There are alternative approaches to minimizing the administrative effort involved in preparing for document review. Here are three that I have thought of, none of which I have chosen to follow:

  1. Create a Dropbox folder and share it with your committee. Everyone can see the document, but users could also add documents, accidentally delete something, or review a document and make their own edits. Whoops--now you have a versional control issue.
  2. Send each committee member an individual email that includes all the manuscript materials. The email may be quite large, and you will find yourself telling everyone during the meeting the date and time you sent the email while they search for it. You will likely have people saying they did not get all the files.
  3. Provide every committee member with a thumb drive that contains all the document. At the time the AAN made the transition to paperless agenda books, thumb drives were still somewhat expensive, and it did not make sense to keep track of thumb drives when we could create a CD.

 

Just because AAN staff has gone paperless with agenda book production does not mean that all our committee members have followed suit. It is not uncommon for our reviewers to print manuscripts that have been assigned to them and bring those printouts to the committee meetings. The portfolio makes it quite easy to print specific documents rather than the entire agenda. Many of the committee members say that they still prefer to read manuscripts on paper rather than onscreen. Others bring their computers and make their edits and comments using an electronic change-tracking feature.

How do other associations’ committees physically review guidelines? I am always interested in learning more ways to streamline our physician volunteers’ time and workload and would welcome any feedback.

No Comments Tags: American Academy of Neurology · evidence-based medicine · guideline · neurology · technology