bs_bs_banner
Correspondence
SUPPORTIVE CARE GUIDELINES Steve May, Chair of DNT Committee, Tamworth Base Hospital, Tamworth Rural Referral Hospital, Tamworth, New South Wales, Australia To the Editor, I am writing as chair of Dialysis, Nephrology and Transplant (DNT) Committee of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Nephrology (ANZSN) to clarify the DNT position on the articles published in Nephrology 2013; 18: 401–54, titled ANZSN Renal Supportive Care Guidelines 2013. The DNT Committee as the clinical arm for both ANZSN and Kidney Health Australia (KHA) is responsible for clinical policy development and review in Australia and to a lesser extent in New Zealand. The DNT Committee had endorsed a position paper on a conservative care pathway. This is contained in the first chapter in the series of articles. This is a balanced summary of the current evidence and opinion on this potentially contentious issue. The DNT Committee had specifically used the term position paper and not guideline to reflect the ANZSN and KHA position.
174
The use of the term guideline in the Australian context especially a DNT context which oversights CARI implies that a guideline has undergone a rigorous process of evidence review, grading and consultation. This process was not used in developing the Supportive Care position paper. There is a genuine concern that guidelines could become mandated and hence the terminology is more than just a semantic argument. The following articles also published under the ANZSN guideline banner were seen by the DNT Committee as opinion pieces and hence did not have specific DNT endorsement. DNT recognizes that these articles are valid, useful and thought provoking contributions to this emerging field and I would recommend all nephrologists spend the time to read and reflect on them. In summary only chapter 1 has DNT endorsement but as a position paper not a guideline and the following chapters do not have specific DNT endorsement. The use of guideline is potentially misleading in the Australian context and not supported by DNT. Accepted for publication 25 September 2013. doi:10.1111/nep.12164
© 2014 Asian Pacific Society of Nephrology
Correspondence
SUPPORTIVE CARE GUIDELINES Steve May, Chair of DNT Committee, Tamworth Base Hospital, Tamworth Rural Referral Hospital, Tamworth, New South Wales, Australia To the Editor, I am writing as chair of Dialysis, Nephrology and Transplant (DNT) Committee of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Nephrology (ANZSN) to clarify the DNT position on the articles published in Nephrology 2013; 18: 401–54, titled ANZSN Renal Supportive Care Guidelines 2013. The DNT Committee as the clinical arm for both ANZSN and Kidney Health Australia (KHA) is responsible for clinical policy development and review in Australia and to a lesser extent in New Zealand. The DNT Committee had endorsed a position paper on a conservative care pathway. This is contained in the first chapter in the series of articles. This is a balanced summary of the current evidence and opinion on this potentially contentious issue. The DNT Committee had specifically used the term position paper and not guideline to reflect the ANZSN and KHA position.
174
The use of the term guideline in the Australian context especially a DNT context which oversights CARI implies that a guideline has undergone a rigorous process of evidence review, grading and consultation. This process was not used in developing the Supportive Care position paper. There is a genuine concern that guidelines could become mandated and hence the terminology is more than just a semantic argument. The following articles also published under the ANZSN guideline banner were seen by the DNT Committee as opinion pieces and hence did not have specific DNT endorsement. DNT recognizes that these articles are valid, useful and thought provoking contributions to this emerging field and I would recommend all nephrologists spend the time to read and reflect on them. In summary only chapter 1 has DNT endorsement but as a position paper not a guideline and the following chapters do not have specific DNT endorsement. The use of guideline is potentially misleading in the Australian context and not supported by DNT. Accepted for publication 25 September 2013. doi:10.1111/nep.12164
© 2014 Asian Pacific Society of Nephrology
