Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
LetterLetters

Practitioner’s role in implementing varying guidelines

Manish P. Ranpara
Canadian Family Physician April 2020, 66 (4) 235;
Manish P. Ranpara
Toronto, Ont
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

I read with great interest the article “Cervical cancer screening for young women. First do no harm” by Dr Phillips and colleagues in the January issue of Canadian Family Physician.1

Physicians often get mixed messages from various organizations regarding specific tests, screening or otherwise. For example, for cervical cancer screening, how is it possible that different countries or provinces have different guidelines for the same issue? Is it clinically possible for a cervix to change across the border from Ontario to Alberta? Of course not! The article touches on this fact.

Part of the reason guidelines differ is because they are made by different people with different experiences, expertise, and values. However, the article fails to mention another barrier in implementing evidence-based medicine: the practitioner. Individual physicians might have different perspectives on, experiences with, or knowledge of the guidelines, for example. They might be hesitant to not follow their province’s guidelines out of the fear of litigation, and they might have time constraints preventing them from discussing screening in the detail required with the patient in front of them. Some suggestions are presented to help my colleagues overcome these barriers in order to serve their patients better.

First, when a difference in guidelines exists, it might be sensible to follow the guideline with the best evidence. This includes the guideline having a thorough discussion about the harms and benefits. Conflicts of interest must also be clearly disclosed. The 2018 article by Dr Dickinson and colleagues helps provide a framework for this.2

Second, while I am not a lawyer and I cannot comment definitively on the concerns about litigation, an article by Dr Wilson regarding cancer screening and litigation states that people must be told about the benefits, harms, limitations, and expectations of a screening test before being screened.3 This resonates with the guidelines from several regulatory colleges in Canada around informed consent. This commentary by Dr Phillips and colleagues is particularly exemplary, as it highlights this need for shared decision making.

It should also be mentioned that the culture of the nation matters, and studies show a trend toward “defensive medicine” in countries with high litigation rates. This is not surprising, and neither is the fact that such medicine comes with unnecessary tests and overdiagnosis leading to harm.4

Finally, it is understandable that a family physician might wonder how a shared and informed decision can be made in a 15-minute consultation. Physicians might want to consider having pictorials at hand, such as the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care 1000-person tool (not currently available for cervical cancer, but it is available for breast cancer and prostate cancer),5,6 or they might consider giving eligible patients information leaflets ahead of their periodic health examinations. They can get feedback from colleagues about their communication skills (eg, are they using lay terms to explain concepts clearly).

For undecided patients, family physicians can consider discussing concerns and delaying a screening Papanicolaou test if it is safe to do so. Patients should be given time to decide, if possible, as the information conveyed is often new and complex. While it is unfortunate that different guidelines exist, part of the solution lies in acknowledging this and understanding these guidelines and then tailoring the solution to the person in front of you.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests

    None declared

  • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Phillips SP,
    2. Bates S,
    3. Mavriplis C,
    4. Greiver M,
    5. Patel T,
    6. Hayes MJ,
    7. et al
    . Cervical cancer screening for young women. First do no harm. Can Fam Physician 2020;66:14-8. (Eng), 19–23 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Dickinson JA,
    2. Bell NR,
    3. Grad R,
    4. Singh H,
    5. Groulx S,
    6. Szafran O
    . Choosing guidelines to use in your practice. Can Fam Physician 2018;64:357-62. (Eng), e225–31 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Wilson RM
    . Screening for breast and cervical cancer as a common cause for litigation. A false negative result may be one of an irreducible minimum of errors. BMJ 2000;320(7246):1352-3.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Woodward C
    . Defensive medicine starts at the top in United States. CMAJ 2010;182(8):E335-6. Epub 2010 Apr 19.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
    . Breast cancer screening for women not at increased risk. Montreal, QC: Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care; 2018. Available from: https://canadiantaskforce.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CTFPHC_Breast_Cancer_1000_Person-Final_v10.pdf. Accessed 2020 Mar 9.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
    . Benefits and harms of PSA screening. Calgary, AB: Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care; 2014. Available from: https://canadiantaskforce.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2014-prostate-cancer-harms-and-benefits-colour-en.pdf. Accessed 2020 Mar 9.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 66 (4)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 66, Issue 4
1 Apr 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Practitioner’s role in implementing varying guidelines
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Practitioner’s role in implementing varying guidelines
Manish P. Ranpara
Canadian Family Physician Apr 2020, 66 (4) 235;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Practitioner’s role in implementing varying guidelines
Manish P. Ranpara
Canadian Family Physician Apr 2020, 66 (4) 235;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Excellent chronic pain guideline
  • Treating the vaccine hesitant
  • Francophone participation at Family Medicine Forum
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2022 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire