Dataset Information

Guideline-based quality indicators-a systematic comparison of German and international clinical practice guidelines: protocol for a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Quality indicators (QIs) are used in assessing the quality of healthcare. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are relevant sources for generating QIs. In this context, QIs are important tools to assess the implementation of guideline recommendations. However, the methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development vary considerably. In Germany, the guideline classification scheme of the AWMF (German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies) differentiates between S1-, S2k-, S2e-, and S3-CPGs depending on the methodological approach. Thus, S3-CPGs are consensus- and evidence-based CPGs and have the highest methodological standard in Germany. An analysis of the status quo of reported QIs in S3-CPGs found 35 current S3-CPGs, which report 372 different QIs. Currently, there is no gold standard for the development of guideline-based QIs. To our knowledge, no studies have investigated to what extent guideline-based QIs from different CPGs that are related to the same topic are consistent. The objective of this study is to compare guideline-based QIs and their underlying methodological approaches of German S3-CPGs with those of topic-related international CPGs. METHODS:Based on the previous identified German S3-CPGs (n?=?35), which report quality indicators, we will conduct systematic searches in the guidelines databases of G-I-N (Guidelines International Network) and NGC (National Guideline Clearinghouse) to identify international CPGs matching the topics of the S3-CPGs. If necessary, we will search additionally the websites of the particular CPG providers for separate documents with regard to QIs. We will include evidence-based CPGs which report QIs. Reported QIs as well as methods of development and the rationale for QIs will be extracted and compared with those of the S3-CPGs. DISCUSSION:This study will be part of the project "Systematic analysis of the translation of guideline recommendations into quality indicators and development of an evidence- and consensus-based standard," supported by the German Research Association (DFG). The results of this analysis will feed into a subsequent qualitative study, which will consist of structured interviews with developers of international CPGs. Further, the results will be considered in a consensus study on standards of the translation of guideline recommendations into quality indicators in Germany.

SUBMITTER: Becker M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5767020 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Guideline-based quality indicators-a systematic comparison of German and international clinical practice guidelines: protocol for a systematic review.

Becker Monika M Breuing Jessica J Nothacker Monika M Deckert Stefanie S Steudtner Mirco M Schmitt Jochen J Neugebauer Edmund E Pieper Dawid D

Systematic reviews 20180112 1

<h4>Background</h4>Quality indicators (QIs) are used in assessing the quality of healthcare. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are relevant sources for generating QIs. In this context, QIs are important tools to assess the implementation of guideline recommendations. However, the methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development vary considerably. In Germany, the guideline classification scheme of the AWMF (German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies) differ ...[more]

PMID: 29329578

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEvidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are relevant sources for generating quality indicators (QIs). The objective of this study was to compare guideline-based QIs of German and international CPGs and their underlying methodological approaches.MethodsWe conducted systematic searches in the guideline databases of G-I-N (Guidelines International Network) and NGC (National Guideline Clearinghouse) between February and June 2017 to identify international CPGs matching the topics of German evidence-based CPGs (n = 35) that report QIs, which were identified in a preceding study. Additionally, we searched the websites of the particular CPG providers for separate documents with regard to QIs. We included evidence-based CPGs which report QIs. Reported QIs, the underlying guideline recommendations, and information on methods of development were extracted. The selection and extraction of CPGs were conducted by one reviewer and checked by another. For each matched pair of CPGs, we assessed whether the suggested QIs matched or were not directly comparable.ResultsTwenty-five international CPGs, originating from seven CPG providers in total, met the criteria for inclusion. They matched the topics of 18 German CPGs. This resulted in 30 CPG pairs for the comparison of QIs (some of the international CPGs matched the topic of more than one German CPG). We found 27 QI pairs with QIs "not different or slightly different", corresponding to 13% (27 of 212) of the QIs in German CPGs and 16% (27 of 166) in international CPGs. Only two QI pairs were judged to be "different/inconsistent". For 183 of 212 (86%) QIs from German CPGs and 137 of 166 (83%) QIs from international CPGs, no direct comparison could be made. An explicit link to one or more guideline recommendations was found for 136 of 152 (89%) QIs from German CPGs and 82 of 166 (49%) QIs from international CPGs. Some information on methods for the development of QIs existed for 12 of 18 (67%) German CPGs and 8 of 25 (32%) international CPGs.ConclusionsThe majority of QIs in German and international CPGs were not comparable. Various reasons for this are conceivable. More transparent reporting of the underlying methods for generating guideline-based QIs is needed.

Project description:BackgroundStroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Identifying the aetiology of ischaemic stroke is essential in order to initiate appropriate and timely secondary prevention measures to reduce the risk of recurrence. For the majority of ischaemic strokes, the aetiology can be readily identified, but in at least 30% of cases, the exact aetiology cannot be determined using existing investigative protocols. Such strokes are classed as 'cryptogenic' or as a stroke of unknown origin. However, there exists substantial variation in clinical practice when investigating cases of seemingly cryptogenic stroke, often reflecting local service availability and the preferences of treating clinicians. This variation in practice is compounded by the lack of international consensus as to the optimum level and timing of investigations required following a stroke. To address this gap, we aim to systematically review and compare recommendations in evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that relate to the assessment and investigation of the aetiology of ischaemic stroke, and any subsequent diagnosis of cryptogenic stroke.MethodWe will search for CPGs using electronic databases (MEDLINE, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), EMBASE, and CINAHL), relevant websites and search engines (e.g. guideline specific websites, governmental, charitable, and professional practice organisations) and hand-searching of bibliographies and reference lists. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and CPGs using a pre-defined relevance criteria form. From each included CPG, we will extract definitions and terms for cryptogenic stroke; recommendations related to assessment and investigation of the aetiology of stroke, including the grade of recommendations and underpinning evidence. The quality of the included CPGs will be assessed using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) tool. Recommendations across the CPGs will be summarised descriptively highlighting areas of convergence and divergence between CPGs.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this will be the first review to systematically compare recommendations of international CPGs on investigating the aetiology of ischaemic stroke. The findings will allow for a better understanding of international perspectives on the optimum level of investigations required following a stroke and thus contribute to achieving greater international consensus on best practice in this important and complex area.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019127822.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify and critically appraise published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding healthcare of gender minority/trans people.DesignSystematic review and quality appraisal using AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool), including stakeholder domain prioritisation.SettingSix databases and six CPG websites were searched, and international key opinion leaders approached.ParticipantsCPGs relating to adults and/or children who are gender minority/trans with no exclusions due to comorbidities, except differences in sex development.InterventionAny health-related intervention connected to the care of gender minority/trans people.Main outcome measuresNumber and quality of international CPGs addressing the health of gender minority/trans people, information on estimated changes in mortality or quality of life (QoL), consistency of recommended interventions across CPGs, and appraisal of key messages for patients.ResultsTwelve international CPGs address gender minority/trans people's healthcare as complete (n=5), partial (n=4) or marginal (n=3) focus of guidance. The quality scores have a wide range and heterogeneity whichever AGREE II domain is prioritised. Five higher-quality CPGs focus on HIV and other blood-borne infections (overall assessment scores 69%-94%). Six lower-quality CPGs concern transition-specific interventions (overall assessment scores 11%-56%). None deal with primary care, mental health or longer-term medical issues. Sparse information on estimated changes in mortality and QoL is conflicting. Consistency between CPGs could not be examined due to unclear recommendations within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care Version 7 and a lack of overlap between other CPGs. None provide key messages for patients.ConclusionsA paucity of high-quality guidance for gender minority/trans people exists, largely limited to HIV and transition, but not wider aspects of healthcare, mortality or QoL. Reference to AGREE II, use of systematic reviews, independent external review, stakeholder participation and patient facing material might improve future CPG quality.Prospero registration numberCRD42019154361.

Project description:ObjectivesEvidence-based clinical guidelines play an important role in healthcare and can be a valuable source for quality indicators (QIs). However, the link between guidelines and QI is often neglected and methodological standards for the development of guideline-based QI are still lacking. The aim of this qualitative study was to get insights into experiences of international authors with developing and implementing guideline-based QI.SettingWe conducted semistructured interviews via phone or skype (September 2017-February 2018) with guideline authors developing guideline-based QI.Participants15 interview participants from eight organisations in six European and North American countries.MethodsOrganisations were selected using purposive sampling with a maximum variation of healthcare settings. From each organisation a clinician and a methodologist were asked to participate. An interview guide was developed based on the QI development steps according to the 'Reporting standards for guideline-based performance measures' by the Guidelines International Network. Interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis with deductive and inductive categories.ResultsInterviewees deemed a programmatic approach, involvement of representative stakeholders with clinical and methodological knowledge and the connection to existing quality improvement strategies important factors for developing QI parallel to or after guideline development. Methodological training of the developing team and a shared understanding of the QI purpose were further seen conducive. Patient participation and direct patient relevance were inconsistently considered important, whereas a strong evidence base was seen essential. To assess measurement characteristics interviewees favoured piloting, but often missed implementation. Lack of measurability is still experienced a serious limitation, especially for qualitative aspects and individualised care.ConclusionOur results suggest that developing guideline-based QI can succeed either parallel to or following the guideline process with careful planning and instruction. Strategic partnerships seem key for implementation. Patient participation and relevance, measurement of qualitative aspects and piloting are areas for further development.Trial registration numberGerman Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00013006).

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine the accessibility and currency of delirium guidelines, guideline summary papers and evaluation studies, and critically appraise guideline quality. DESIGN:Systematic literature search for formal guidelines (in English or French) with focus on delirium assessment and/or management in adults (≥18 years), guideline summary papers and evaluation studies.Full appraisal of delirium guidelines published between 2008 and 2013 and obtaining a 'Rigour of Development' domain screening score cut-off of >40% using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. DATA SOURCES:Multiple bibliographic databases, guideline organisation databases, complemented by a grey literature search. RESULTS:3327 database citations and 83 grey literature links were identified. A total of 118 retrieved delirium guidelines and related documents underwent full-text screening. A final 21 delirium guidelines (with 10 being >5 years old), 12 guideline summary papers and 3 evaluation studies were included. For 11 delirium guidelines published between 2008 and 2013, the screening AGREE II 'Rigour' scores ranged from 3% to 91%, with seven meeting the cut-off score of >40%. Overall, the highest rating AGREE II domains were 'Scope and Purpose' (mean 80.1%, range 64-100%) and 'Clarity and Presentation' (mean 76.7%, range 38-97%). The lowest rating domains were 'Applicability' (mean 48.7%, range 8-81%) and 'Editorial Independence' (mean 53%, range 2-90%). The three highest rating guidelines in the 'Applicability' domain incorporated monitoring criteria or audit and costing templates, and/or implementation strategies. CONCLUSIONS:Delirium guidelines are best sourced by a systematic grey literature search. Delirium guideline quality varied across all six AGREE II domains, demonstrating the importance of using a formal appraisal tool prior to guideline adaptation and implementation into clinical settings. Adding more knowledge translation resources to guidelines may improve their practical application and effective monitoring. More delirium guideline evaluation studies are needed to determine their effect on clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are developed to assist health care providers in decision-making. We systematically reviewed existing CPGs on the HDPs (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy) to inform clinical practice.Methodology & principal findingsMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessments, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (Ovid interface), Grey Matters, Google Scholar, and personal records were searched for CPGs on the HDPs (Jan/03 to Nov/13) in English, French, Dutch, or German. Of 13 CPGs identified, three were multinational and three developed for community/midwifery use. Length varied from 3-1188 pages and three guidelines did not formulate recommendations. Eight different grading systems were identified for assessing evidence quality and recommendation strength. No guideline scored ≧80% on every domain of the AGREE II, a tool for assessing guideline methodological quality; two CPGs did so for 5/6 domains. Consistency was seen for (i) definitions of hypertension, proteinuria, chronic and gestational hypertension; (ii) pre-eclampsia prevention for women at increased risk: calcium when intake is low and low-dose aspirin, but not vitamins C and E or diuretics; (iii) antihypertensive treatment of severe hypertension; (iv) MgSO4 for eclampsia and severe pre-eclampsia; (v) antenatal corticosteroids at <34 wks when delivery is probable within 7 days; (vi) delivery for women with severe pre-eclampsia pre-viability or pre-eclampsia at term; and (vii) active management of the third stage of labour with oxytocin. Notable inconsistencies were in: (i) definitions of pre-eclampsia and severe pre-eclampsia; (ii) target BP for non-severe hypertension; (iii) timing of delivery for women with pre-eclampsia and severe pre-eclampsia; (iv) MgSO4 for non-severe pre-eclampsia, and (v) postpartum maternal monitoring.ConclusionsExisting international HDP CPGs have areas of consistency with which clinicians and researchers can work to develop auditable standards, and areas of inconsistency that should be addressed by future research.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral guideline organizations produce patient versions of clinical practice guidelines (PVGs) which translate recommendations into simple language. A former study of our working group revealed that few guideline organizations publish their methods used to develop PVGs. Clear definitions of PVGs do not prevail and their purposes often remain unclear. We aimed to explore experts' perspectives on developing, disseminating and implementing PVGs to discuss and incorporate these experiences when consenting on methodological guidance and further improving PVGs.MethodsWe conducted 17 semi-structured telephone interviews with international experts working with PVGs from September 2021 through January 2022. We conducted the interviews in English or German, they were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We utilized Mayring's qualitative content analysis with MAXQDA software to analyze the data.ResultsIn two interviews two participants were interviewed at the same time. This resulted in a total of 19 participants from 16 different organizations and eight different countries participated. Most were female (16/19) and their experience in working with PVGs ranged from 1 to 20 years. All follow methodological standards when developing PVGs, but the extent of these standards and their public accessibility differs. Aims and target groups of PVGs vary between organizations. Facilitators for developing PVGs are working with a multidisciplinary team, financial resources, consultation processes and a high-quality underlying CPG. Facilitators for disseminating and implementing PVGs are using various strategies. Barriers, on the other hand, are the lack of these factors. All participants mentioned patient involvement as a key aspect in PVG development.ConclusionThe steps in the PVG development process are largely similar across the countries. Focus is placed on the involvement of patients in the development process, although the extent of participation varies. The experts collectively attribute great importance to PVGs overall, but in order to constantly adapt to medical progress and changing conditions, the focus in the future may be more on formats like living guidelines. Although there are different views on the mandatory development of PVGs, there is a consistent call for more transparency regarding the methodology used for PVGs.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Guidelines and quality indicators (for example as part of a quality assurance scheme) aim to improve health care delivery and health outcomes. Ideally, the development of quality indicators should be grounded in evidence-based, trustworthy guideline recommendations. However, anecdotally, guidelines and quality assurance schemes are developed independently, by different groups of experts who employ different methodologies. We conducted an extension and update of a previous systematic review to identify, describe and evaluate approaches to the integrated development of guidelines and related quality indicators. METHODS:On May 24th, 2019 we searched in Medline, Embase and CINAHL and included studies if they reported a methodological approach to guideline-based quality indicator development and were published in English, French, or German. RESULTS:Out of 16,034 identified records, we included 17 articles that described a method to integrate guideline recommendations development and quality indicator development. Added to the 13 method articles from original systematic review we included a total 30 method articles. We did not find any evaluation studies. In most approaches, guidelines were a source of evidence to inform the quality indicator development. The criteria to select recommendations (e.g. level of evidence or strength of the recommendation) and to generate, select and assess quality indicators varied widely. We found methodological approaches that linked guidelines and quality indicator development explicitly, however none of the articles reported a conceptual framework that fully integrated quality indicator development into the guideline process or where quality indicator development was part of the question formulation for developing the guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS:In our systematic review we found approaches which explicitly linked guidelines with quality indicator development, nevertheless none of the articles reported a comprehensive and well-defined conceptual framework which integrated quality indicator development fully into the guideline development process.

Dataset Information

Guideline-based quality indicators-a systematic comparison of German and international clinical practice guidelines: protocol for a systematic review.

Publications

Guideline-based quality indicators-a systematic comparison of German and international clinical practice guidelines: protocol for a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets