Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical practice guidelines for the optimization of hemato-oncological care: the ICOPraxis

  • Brief Research Article
  • Published:
Clinical and Translational Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO) is a Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) responsible for the oncological care of 46% of the Catalan population.

Objective

Given the increasing and ongoing approval of onco-hematological treatments, the professionals at the ICO decided to have clinical practice guidelines (called ICOPraxis) based on available evidence. In this report, we intend to share how the ICOPraxis has developed and what its impact has been in the 14 years it has been running.

Results

In the 14 years, since the project has been running, 17 clinical practice guidelines (some of them with several editions) have been prepared for major onco-hematology clinical conditions. These guidelines will be utilized in the four ICO centers (Girona, Badalona, Tarragona, and Hospitalet) and ICO works in a network with 18 regional hospitals. Between 2018 and 2022, the guidelines have been viewed 38.645 times and downloaded 24.614 times, with an average time spent on each page of 3 min. The ICOPraxis have been consulted in 25 countries in America (3.163 views), 20 countries in Europe (35.365 views), 10 countries in Asia (36 views), and 3 countries in Africa (12 views). The country with the highest number of downloads is Spain with a total of 34.742 downloads (Analytics [Internet]).

Conclusion

The ICOPraxis have succeeded in establishing an evidence-based system that facilitates prescription decision-making according to the established harmonization process and reduction in variability in treatments, increasing equity in our population.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Simone JV. Understanding cancer centers. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(23):4503–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Institut Catala d’Oncologia | UICC [Internet]. [cited 2022 Aug 12]. Available from: https://www.uicc.org/membership/institut-catala-doncologia

  3. El instituto Catalan de Oncologia [Internet]. [cited 2020 May 3]. Available from: http://ico.gencat.cat/en/l_institut/

  4. Cherny NI, Dafni U, Bogaerts J, Latino NJ, Pentheroudakis G, Douillard JY, et al. ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(10):2340–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rajkumar SV. The High Cost of Cancer Drugs: What Can We Do? Hematological Oncol. 2019;37(S2):172–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Song P, Tang W, Tamura S, Hasegawa K, Sugawara Y, Dong J, et al. The management of hepatocellular carcinoma in Asia: a guideline combining quantitative and qualitative evaluation. Biosci Trends. 2010;4(6):283–7.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program [Internet]. Field MJ, Lohr KN, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1990 [cited 2021 Feb 5]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235751/

  8. Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7:16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. ESMO. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Authors and templates for ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) and ESMO-MCBS Scores [Internet]. Available from: https://www.esmo.org/content/download/77789/1426712/1

  10. Grupo de trabajo GENESIS (Grupo de Evaluación de Novedades. Estandarización e Investigación en Selección de medicamentos) de la SEFH (Sociedad española de Farmacia Hospitalaria) [Internet]. [cited 2020 May 3]. Available from: https://gruposdetrabajo.sefh.es/genesis/

  11. Frutos Pérez-Surio A, Jordán de Luna C. Guidelines for evidence synthesis reporting: medications. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2020;27(5):306–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dreier G, Löhler J. Evidence and evidence gaps – an introduction. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;15:Doc11.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Müller T. Evidence-based benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals as a basis for rational and economical pharmaceutical therapy. Eur J Health Econ. 2008;9(Suppl 1):1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Shekelle P, Woolf S, Grimshaw JM, Schünemann HJ, Eccles MP. Developing clinical practice guidelines: reviewing, reporting, and publishing guidelines; updating guidelines; and the emerging issues of enhancing guideline implementability and accounting for comorbid conditions in guideline development. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Barasa EW, Molyneux S, English M, Cleary S. Setting Healthcare priorities at the macro and meso levels: a framework for evaluation. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(11):719–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sharp CA, Swaithes L, Ellis B, Dziedzic K, Walsh N. Implementation research: making better use of evidence to improve healthcare. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2020;59(8):1799–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tomasone JR, Kauffeldt KD, Chaudhary R, Brouwers MC. Effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies on health care professionals’ behaviour and patient outcomes in the cancer care context: a systematic review. Implementation Sci. 2020;15(1):41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fischer F, Lange K, Klose K, Greiner W, Kraemer A. Barriers and strategies in guideline implementation—a scoping review. Healthcare (Basel). 2016;4(3):36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Guías y protocolos [Internet]. Instituto Catalán de Oncología. [cited 2020 May 3]. Available from: http://ico.gencat.cat/es/professionals/guies_i_protocols

  20. Analytics [Internet]. [cited 2022 Aug 17]. Available from: https://analytics.google.com/analytics/web/provision/#/provision

  21. Guidelines I of M (US) C on S for DTCP, Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM, Greenfield S, Steinberg E. Current Best Practices and Proposed Standards for Development of Trustworthy CPGs: Part 1, Getting Started [Internet]. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. National Academies Press (US); 2011 [cited 2022 Aug 17]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209537/

  22. Wailoo A, Roberts J, Brazier J, McCabe C. Efficiency, equity, and NICE clinical guidelines. BMJ. 2004;328(7439):536–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gabbay J, le May A. Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed “mindlines?” Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. BMJ. 2004;329(7473):1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nicol E. Sustainability in healthcare: efficiency, effectiveness, ­economics and the environment. Future Healthc J. 2018;5(2):81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Programa d’harmonització farmacoterapèutica [Internet]. CatSalut. Servei Català de la Salut. [cited 2022 Aug 17]. Available from: http://catsalut.gencat.cat/ca/proveidors-professionals/farmacia-medicaments/programa-harmonitzacio-farmacoterapeutica/

  26. Sede Electrónica de la Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios - Sede Electrónica de la AEMPS [Internet]. [cited 2022 Aug 17]. Available from: https://sede.aemps.gob.es/

  27. EMA. European Medicines Agency [Internet]. European Medicines Agency. [cited 2022 Aug 17]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en

  28. Lyratzopoulos G, Barnes S, Stegenga H, Peden S, Campbell B. Updating clinical practice recommendations: is it worthwhile and when? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(1):29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Martínez García L, Sanabria AJ, García Alvarez E, Trujillo-Martín MM, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Kotzeva A, et al. The validity of recommendations from clinical guidelines: a survival analysis. CMAJ. 2014;186(16):1211–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. E. Fernández is partly supported by the Ministry of Business and Knowledge from the Government of Catalonia (2017 SGR 319). We thank CERCA Programme/Generalitat de Catalunya for institutional support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pharmacy Department, Institut Català d’Oncologia—ICO, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain

    Consuelo Jordán de Luna & Ana Clopés

  2. Department of Clinical Sciences, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Consuelo Jordán de Luna & Esteve Fernández

  3. Tobacco Control Unit, Institut Català d’Oncologia-ICO, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain

    Esteve Fernández

  4. Tobacco Control Research Group, Institut d’Investigació Mèdica de Bellvitge—IDIBELL, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain

    Esteve Fernández

  5. CIBER of Respiratory Diseases (CIBERES), Madrid, Spain

    Esteve Fernández

  6. Medical Oncology Department, Institut Català d’Oncologia, Badalona, B-ARGO Group, IGTP, Badalona, Spain

    Ricard Mesía

  7. School of Pharmacy, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain

    Ana Clopés

Authors
  1. Consuelo Jordán de Luna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Esteve Fernández
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ricard Mesía
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ana Clopés
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

C.J., A.C. and E.F. conceived the idea of the publication. C.J. prepared the first draft of the manuscript. C. J., A.C., R.M. and E.F. edited and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Consuelo Jordán de Luna.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have nothing to disclose regarding the submitted work.

Human participants and/or animals

This work does not report results in clinical research in humans or animals.

Informed consent

As it does not involve research in humans or animals, it is not necessary to collect an informed consent for the submitted work.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jordán de Luna, C., Fernández, E., Mesía, R. et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the optimization of hemato-oncological care: the ICOPraxis. Clin Transl Oncol 25, 555–559 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-022-02962-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-022-02962-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation