Log in with your email address username.

×

Important notice

doctorportal Learning is on the move as we will be launching a new website very shortly. If you would like to sign up to dp Learning now to register for CPD learning or to use our CPD tracker, please email support@doctorportal.com.au so we can assist you. If you are already signed up to doctorportal Learning, your login will work in the new site so you can continue to enrol for learning, complete an online module, or access your CPD tracker report.

To access and/or sign up for other resources such as Jobs Board, Bookshop or InSight+, please go to www.mja.com.au, or click the relevant menu item and you will be redirected.

All other doctorportal services, such as Find A Doctor, are no longer available.

Can Australia’s clinical practice guidelines be trusted?

- Featured Image

Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines can improve the health of the population and lead to more efficient and effective investment in health care. Take cerebral palsy, for example, a condition that, in 2008, was estimated to cost the Australian taxpayer $3.87 billion per annum (http://www.adelaide.edu.au/arch/antenatalMagneiumSulphateGuidlines.pdf). The Australian antenatal magnesium sulfate guidelines, approved by National Health and Medical Research Council and released in 2010, have been implemented successfully in 90% of tertiary maternity hospitals, and are estimated to be preventing more than 150 new cases of cerebral palsy from occurring each year (Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 53: 86-89). Considering the estimated annual cost to the community of $115 000 per person with cerebral palsy, the cumulative long-term savings from this single guideline will be substantial.

Significant time, effort and resources are spent developing clinical practice guidelines for use in Australia. Between 2005 and 2013, 1046 such guidelines were published. Most, however, are of disappointingly poor quality and should not be trusted to inform decision making. Most do not describe the processes used to develop them and lack transparency around who authored them, with one in three containing no information at all about the guideline development group…

email