Dataset Information

STANDING Collaboration: a study protocol for developing clinical standards.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Despite widespread availability of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), considerable gaps continue between the care that is recommended ('appropriate care') and the care provided. Problems with current CPGs are commonly cited as barriers to providing 'appropriate care'.Our study aims to develop and test an alternative method to keep CPGs accessible and up to date. This method aims to mitigate existing problems by using a single process to develop clinical standards (embodied in clinical indicators) collaboratively with researchers, healthcare professionals, patients and consumers. A transparent and inclusive online curated (purpose-designed, custom-built, wiki-type) system will use an ongoing and iterative documentation process to facilitate synthesis of up-to-date information and make available its provenance. All participants are required to declare conflicts of interest. This protocol describes three phases: engagement of relevant stakeholders; design of a process to develop clinical standards (embodied in indicators) for 'appropriate care' for common medical conditions; and evaluation of our processes, products and feasibility.

Methods and analysis

A modified e-Delphi process will be used to gain consensus on 'appropriate care' for a range of common medical conditions. Clinical standards and indicators will be developed through searches of national and international guidelines, and formulated with explicit criteria for inclusion, exclusion, time frame and setting. Healthcare professionals and consumers will review the indicators via the wiki-based modified e-Delphi process. Reviewers will declare conflicts of interest which will be recorded and managed according to an established protocol. The provenance of all indicators and suggestions included or excluded will be logged from indicator inception to finalisation. A mixed-methods formative evaluation of our research methodology will be undertaken.

Ethics and dissemination

Human Research Ethics Committee approval has been received from the University of South Australia. We will submit the results of the study to relevant journals and offer national and international presentations.

SUBMITTER: Wiles LK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5652459 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

<i>STANDING Collaboration</i>: a study protocol for developing clinical standards.

Wiles Louise K LK Hibbert Peter D PD Stephens Jacqueline H JH Coiera Enrico E Westbrook Johanna J Braithwaite Jeffrey J Day Ric O RO Hillman Ken M KM Runciman William B WB

BMJ open 20171011 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>Despite widespread availability of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), considerable gaps continue between the care that is recommended ('appropriate care') and the care provided. Problems with current CPGs are commonly cited as barriers to providing 'appropriate care'.Our study aims to develop and test an alternative method to keep CPGs accessible and up to date. This method aims to mitigate existing problems by using a single process to develop clinical standards (embodied ...[more]

PMID: 29025823

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) set criteria for the delivery of healthcare services in Australia. While a voluntary process, continual accreditation with ACHS is an expectation of, and for, Australian healthcare providers. Juxtapositioned with the ACHS, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (NMBA) set the mandatory practice requirements of, and for, Australian nurses. Despite these overarching quality and governance directives, a regional Queensland Hospital and Health Service (HHS) demonstrated deficits in the quality of nursing care. Accordingly, a HHS project was commissioned with the aim of producing a quantum shift in the quality of nursing services such that the service was ready-everyday for accreditation assessment, and nursing practice exemplified the NMBA standards.Several barriers to achieving the aim were identified and it was considered that the implementation of critical system changes would structurally and operationally support the achievement of the aim. The system changes are pivoted around an interactive matrix that links nursing care services to the array of nursing professional and practice standards and provides real-time quantitative output measures. This paper outlines the protocol that will be used to establish, implement and evaluate the matrix. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A participatory action research design with a modified Delphi methodology will be used for the development the matrix. The organisational change management around the matrix implementation will be informed by Kotter's model and supported by the use of the McKinsey 7S. The matrix implementation phase will be conducted using a modified Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services model. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected over a 12 month pre-test/post-test design to measure the statistical significance of the matrix in supporting compliance with nursing standards and the achievement of quality nursing care. Quantitative data from quality of care assessments will be analysed using descriptive and comparative statistics. Qualitative data from staff surveys will be analysed by content analysis of the major themes (n~200). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The project has ethics approval from a Queensland Health Human Research Ethics Committee. Results will be reported to participants and other stakeholders at seminars and conferences and through peer-reviewed publications.

Project description:BackgroundEffective standardisation of methodologies to analyse the microbiome is essential to the entire microbiome community. Despite the microbiome field being established for over a decade, there are no accredited or certified reference materials available to the wider community. In this study, we describe the development of the first reference reagents produced by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) for microbiome analysis by next-generation sequencing. These can act as global working standards and will be evaluated as candidate World Health Organization International Reference Reagents.ResultsWe developed the NIBSC DNA reference reagents Gut-Mix-RR and Gut-HiLo-RR and a four-measure framework for evaluation of bioinformatics tool and pipeline bias. Using these reagents and reporting system, we performed an independent evaluation of a variety of bioinformatics tools by analysing shotgun sequencing and 16S rRNA sequencing data generated from the Gut-Mix-RR and Gut-HiLo-RR. We demonstrate that key measures of microbiome health, such as diversity estimates, are largely inflated by the majority of bioinformatics tools. Across all tested tools, biases were present, with a clear trade-off occurring between sensitivity and the relative abundance of false positives in the final dataset. Using commercially available mock communities, we investigated how the composition of reference reagents may impact benchmarking studies. Reporting measures consistently changed when the same bioinformatics tools were used on different community compositions. This was influenced by both community complexity and taxonomy of species present. Both NIBSC reference reagents, which consisted of gut commensal species, proved to be the most challenging for the majority of bioinformatics tools tested. Going forward, we recommend the field uses site-specific reagents of a high complexity to ensure pipeline benchmarking is fit for purpose.ConclusionsIf a consensus of acceptable levels of error can be agreed on, widespread adoption of these reference reagents will standardise downstream gut microbiome analyses. We propose to do this through a large open-invite collaborative study for multiple laboratories in 2020. Video Abstract.

Project description:The appropriate level of oxygenation for extremely preterm neonates (<28 weeks' gestation) to maximise the greatest chance of survival, without incurring significant morbidity, remains unknown. Infants exposed to lower levels of oxygen (targeting oxygen saturations of <90%) in the first weeks of life are at increased risk of death, cerebral palsy, patent ductus arteriosus, pulmonary vascular resistance and apnoea, whilst those maintained in higher levels of oxygen (targeting oxygen saturations of >90%) have been reported to have greater rates of morbidity including retinopathy of prematurity and chronic lung disease. In order to answer this clinical dilemma reliably, large scale trial evidence is needed.To detect a small but important 4% increase in death or severe disability in survivors, over 5000 neonates would need to be recruited. As extreme prematurity affects 1% of births, such a project undertaken by one trial group would be prohibitively lengthy and expensive. Hence, the Neonatal Oxygenation Prospective Meta-analysis (NeOProM) Collaboration has been formed. A prospective meta-analysis (PMA) is one where studies are identified, evaluated, and determined to be eligible before the results of any included studies are known or published, thereby avoiding some of the potential biases inherent in standard, retrospective meta-analyses. This methodology provides the same strengths as a single large-scale multicentre randomised study whilst allowing greater pragmatic flexibility. The NeOProM Collaboration protocol (NCT01124331) has been agreed prior to the results of individual trials being available. This includes pre-specifying the hypotheses, inclusion criteria and outcome measures to be used. Each trial will first publish their respective results as they become available and the combined meta-analytic results, using individual patient data, will be published when all trials are complete. The primary outcome to be assessed is a composite outcome of death or major disability at 18 months - 2 years corrected age. Secondary outcomes include several measures of neonatal morbidity. The size of the combined dataset will allow the effect of the interventions to be explored more reliably with respect to pre-specified patient- and intervention-level characteristics.Results should be available by 2014.

Project description:BackgroundDispensed prescription medicine labels (prescription labels) are important information sources supporting safe and appropriate medicines use.ObjectiveTo develop and user test patient-centred prescription label formats.MethodsFive stages: developing 12 labels for four fictitious medicines of varying dosage forms; diagnostic user testing of labels (Round 1) with 40 consumers (each testing three labels); iterative label revision, and development of Round 2 labels (n = 7); user testing of labels (Round 2) with 20 consumers (each testing four labels); labelling recommendations. Evaluated labels stated the active ingredient and brand name, using various design features (eg upper case and bold). Dosing was expressed differently across labels: frequency of doses/day, approximate times of day (eg morning), explicit times (eg 7 to 9 AM), and/or explicit dosing interval. Participants' ability to find and understand medicines information and plan a dosing schedule were assessed.ResultsParticipants demonstrated satisfactory ability to find and understand the dosage for all label formats. Excluding active ingredient and dosing schedule, 14/19 labels (8/12 in Round 1; 6/7 in Round 2) met industry standard on performance. Participants' ability to correctly identify the active ingredient varied, with clear medicine name sign-posting enabling all participants evaluating these labels to find and understand the active ingredient. When planning a dosing schedule, doses were correctly spaced if the label stated a dosing interval, or frequency of doses/day. Two-thirds planned appropriate dosing schedules using a dosing table.ConclusionsEffective prescription label formatting and sign-posting of active ingredient improved communication of information on labels, potentially supporting safe medicines use.Patient and public involvementConsumers actively contributed to the development of dispensed prescription medicine labels. Feedback from consumers following the first round was incorporated in revisions of the labels for the next round. Patient and public involvement in this study was critical to the development of readable and understandable dispensed prescription medicine labels.