Dataset Information

Updating quality indicators for low-risk labour care in Japan using current clinical practice guidelines: a modified Delphi method.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Quality indicators are measurable elements widely used to assess the quality of care. They are often developed from the results of systematic reviews or clinical practice guidelines. These sources are regularly updated in line with new clinical evidence, but there are few articles on updating quality indicators based on clinical practice guidelines. This study aimed to update the quality indicators developed for low-risk labour care in Japan in 2012, mainly drawing on new or updated clinical practice guidelines, and making the process clearly visible and assessable. DESIGN AND SETTING:We used a modified Delphi method for the update. The procedure included four steps: (1) updating the definition of low-risk labour; (2) reviewing the literature published between June 2012 and December 2015 using five guidelines and two quality indicator databases to extract potential candidate indicators; (3) formation of a multidisciplinary panel including mothers and (4) panel ratings (two rounds between February and April 2016) on the validity of the candidate indicators, and judging the validity of the previous quality indicators drawing on the new evidence. PARTICIPANTS:A multidisciplinary panel of 13 clinicians, including obstetricians, paediatricians and midwives, plus 3 non-clinician mothers. RESULTS:The literature review identified 276 new recommendations from 27 clinical practice guidelines including 2 published in Japan and 21 quality indicators. We developed 13 new candidate indicators from these sources and panel recommendations, 12 of which were approved by the multidisciplinary panel. The panel also accepted all 23 existing quality indicators as still valid, resulting in a total of 35 quality indicators for low-risk labour. CONCLUSIONS:We successfully updated the quality indicators for low-risk labour care in Japan. The procedure developed may be useful for updating other quality indicators based on new clinical practice guidelines.

SUBMITTER: Ueda K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6398654 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Updating quality indicators for low-risk labour care in Japan using current clinical practice guidelines: a modified Delphi method.

Ueda Kayo K Kaso Misato M Ohtera Shosuke S Nakayama Takeo T

BMJ open 20190227 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>Quality indicators are measurable elements widely used to assess the quality of care. They are often developed from the results of systematic reviews or clinical practice guidelines. These sources are regularly updated in line with new clinical evidence, but there are few articles on updating quality indicators based on clinical practice guidelines. This study aimed to update the quality indicators developed for low-risk labour care in Japan in 2012, mainly drawing on new or u ...[more]

PMID: 30819701

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundScientific knowledge is in constant change. The flow of new information requires a frequent re-evaluation of the available research results. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are not exempted from this phenomenon and need to be kept updated to maintain the validity of their recommendations. The objective of our review is to systematically identify, describe and assess strategies for monitoring and updating CPGs.Study design and settingWe conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating one or more methods of updating (with or without monitoring) CPGs or recommendations. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library) from 1966 to June 2012. Additionally, we hand-searched reference lists of the included studies and the Guidelines International Network book of abstracts. If necessary, we contacted study authors to obtain additional information.ResultsWe included a total of eight studies. Four evaluated if CPGs were out of date, three updated CPGs, and one continuously monitored and updated CPGs. The most detailed reported phase of the process was the identification of new evidence. As opposed to studies updating guidelines, studies evaluating if CPGs were out of date applied restricted searches. Only one study compared a restricted versus an exhaustive search suggesting that a restricted search is sufficient to assess recommendations' Validity. One study analyzed the survival time of CPGs and suggested that these should be reassessed every three years.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence about the optimal strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines. A restricted search is likely to be sufficient to monitor new evidence and assess the need to update, however, more information is needed about the timing and type of search. Only the exhaustive search strategy has been assessed for the update of CPGs. The development and evaluation of more efficient strategies is needed to improve the timeliness and reduce the burden of maintaining the validity of CPGs.

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have become increasingly popular, and the methodology to develop guidelines has evolved enormously. However, little attention has been given to the updating process, in contrast to the appraisal of the available literature. We conducted an international survey to identify current practices in CPG updating and explored the need to standardize and improve the methods.MethodsWe developed a questionnaire (28 items) based on a review of the existing literature about guideline updating and expert comments. We carried out the survey between March and July 2009, and it was sent by email to 106 institutions: 69 members of the Guidelines International Network who declared that they developed CPGs; 30 institutions included in the U.S. National Guideline Clearinghouse database that published more than 20 CPGs; and 7 institutions selected by an expert committee.ResultsForty-four institutions answered the questionnaire (42% response rate). In the final analysis, 39 completed questionnaires were included. Thirty-six institutions (92%) reported that they update their guidelines. Thirty-one institutions (86%) have a formal procedure for updating their guidelines, and 19 (53%) have a formal procedure for deciding when a guideline becomes out of date. Institutions describe the process as moderately rigorous (36%) or acknowledge that it could certainly be more rigorous (36%). Twenty-two institutions (61%) alert guideline users on their website when a guideline is older than three to five years or when there is a risk of being outdated. Twenty-five institutions (64%) support the concept of "living guidelines," which are continuously monitored and updated. Eighteen institutions (46%) have plans to design a protocol to improve their guideline-updating process, and 21 (54%) are willing to share resources with other organizations.ConclusionsOur study is the first to describe the process of updating CPGs among prominent guideline institutions across the world, providing a comprehensive picture of guideline updating. There is an urgent need to develop rigorous international standards for this process and to minimize duplication of effort internationally.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing women's health literacy is the key to preventing cervical cancer, and various tools have been developed to assess women's cancer health literacy. However, many of these tools come from other countries and have not been adapted to Chinese requirements. Furthermore, a system for evaluating cervical cancer health literacy among Chinese women has not been developed. Therefore, we sought to establish an evaluation index system for cervical cancer health literacy among Chinese women and to provide an effective evaluation tool for tertiary prevention of cervical cancer in China.MethodsWe invited 20 recognized experts to participate in two rounds of Delphi expert consultation, and the modified Delphi process with percentage weighting and multiplication was used. A literature review identified 67 potential indicators. Subsequent discussions within our research team led to the retention of 48 indicators following a rigorous screening process. On this basis, two rounds of Delphi expert consultation were conducted to rate and screen the indexes. Percentage weighting and multiplication were used to determine index weights.ResultsTwenty experts participated in the first-round Delphi consultations (95.23% recovery rate). In the second-round Delphi consultations, 20 questionnaires were returned (100%), and the expert authority coefficient was 0.93 ± 0.02. After both rounds of Delphi consultation, 4 first-level indicators, 9 second-level indicators, and 32 third-level indicators were identified for cervical cancer literacy among Chinese women. On a five-point scale, importance ratings ranged from 3.76 to 4.95 points, with variation coefficients ranging from 0.06 to 0.25, while sensitivity ratings ranged from 3.71 to 4.83 points, with variation coefficients ranging from 0.08 to 0.24. Across both rounds, Kendall's W coefficients ranged from 0.168 to 0.248. The weights of first-level indicators of basic knowledge and attitudes about cervical cancer, primary prevention of cervical cancer literacy, secondary prevention of cervical cancer literacy, and tertiary prevention of cervical cancer literacy were 0.257, 0.249, 0.251, and 0.243, respectively.ConclusionsWe have developed the first tertiary prevention-based, comprehensive evaluation index system for cervical cancer literacy among Chinese women, which will provide theoretical support for cervical cancer prevention and health education programs.

Project description:BackgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common chronic condition and a rising public health issue with increased morbidity and mortality, even at an early stage. Primary care has a pivotal role in the early detection and in the integrated management of CKD which should be of high quality. The quality of care for CKD can be assessed using quality indicators (QIs) and if these QIs are extractable from the electronic medical record (EMR) of the general physician, the number of patients whose quality of care can be evaluated, could increase vastly. Therefore the aim of this study is to develop QIs which are evidence based, EMR extractable and which can be used as a framework to automate quality assessment.MethodsWe used a Rand-modified Delphi method to develop QIs for CKD in primary care. A questionnaire was designed by extracting recommendations from international guidelines based on the SMART principle and the EMR extractability. A multidisciplinary expert panel, including patients, individually scored the recommendations for measuring high quality care on a 9-point Likert scale. The results were analyzed based on the median Likert score, prioritization and agreement. Subsequently, the recommendations were discussed in a consensus meeting for their in- or exclusion. After a final appraisal by the panel members this resulted in a core set of recommendations, which were then transformed into QIs.ResultsA questionnaire composed of 99 recommendations was extracted from 10 international guidelines. The consensus meeting resulted in a core set of 36 recommendations that were translated into 36 QIs. This final set consists of QIs concerning definition & classification, screening, diagnosis, management consisting of follow up, treatment & vaccination, medication & patient safety and referral to a specialist. It were mostly the patients participating in the panel who stressed the importance of the QIs concerning medication & patient safety and a timely referral to a specialist.ConclusionThis study provides a set of 36 EMR extractable QIs for measuring the quality of primary care for CKD. These QIs can be used as a framework to automate quality assessment for CKD in primary care.

Dataset Information

Updating quality indicators for low-risk labour care in Japan using current clinical practice guidelines: a modified Delphi method.

Publications

Updating quality indicators for low-risk labour care in Japan using current clinical practice guidelines: a modified Delphi method.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets