Dataset Information

Translating international guidelines for use in routine maternal and neonatal healthcare quality measurement.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Improving facility-based quality for maternal and neonatal care is the key to reducing morbidity and mortality rates in low- and middle-income countries. Recent guidance from WHO and others has produced a large number of indicators to choose from to track quality.

Objective

To explore how to translate complex global maternal and neonatal health standards into actionable application at the facility level.

Methods

We applied a two-step process as an example of how the 352 indicators in WHO's 2016 Standards for Improving Quality of Maternal and Newborn Care in Health Facilities might be reduced to only those with the strongest evidence base, associated with outcomes, and actionable by facility managers. We applied Hill criteria and assessed whether indicators were within the control of facility managers. We next conducted a rapid review of supporting literature and applied GRADE analysis, retaining those with scores of 'moderate' or 'high'. To understand the utility and barriers to measuring this limited set of indicators in practice, we undertook a case study of hypothetical measurement application in two districts in Bangladesh, interviewing 25 clinicians, managers, and other stakeholders.

Results

From the initial 352 indicators, 56 were retained. The 56 indicators were used as a base for interviews. Respondents emphasized the practical challenges to the use of complex guides and the need for parsimonious and actionable sets of quality indicators.

Conclusions

This work offers one way to move towards a reduced quality indicator set, beginning from current WHO guidance. Despite study limitations, this work provides evidence of the need for reduced and evidence-based sets of quality indicators if guides are to be used to improve quality in practice. We hope that future research will build on and refine our efforts. Measuring quality effectively so that evidence guides and improves practice is the first step to assuring safe maternal and neonatal care.

SUBMITTER: Chang KT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7480423 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPeople with substance use disorders may be at a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 infection and developing medical complications. Several institutional and governmental health agencies across the world developed ad hoc guidance for substance use disorder services and care of individuals misusing substances. We aimed to synthesise the best available recommendations on management and care of people with or at risk of substance use disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic from existing guidelines published in UK, USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Singapore.MethodsWe systematically searched existing guidelines and websites from 28 international institutions and governmental bodies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (May 4th 2021). We summarized the extracted data as answers to specific clinical questions.ResultsWe organised the available recommendations from 19 sources in three sections. First, we focused on general advice and recommendations for people who misuse alcohol or drugs during the COVID-19 pandemic, the design of contingency plans, safeguarding issues for children and families of service users and advice to the public, patients, and carers. Then, we summarised specific guidelines for people who use illicit drugs and related services, such as opioid substitution treatment and needle and syringe programmes. Finally, we provided a synthesis on specific recommendations for services supporting people who misuse alcohol and key topics in the field, such as management of alcohol detoxification and safe transition between supervised and unsupervised consumption.ConclusionsAvailable guidance reflected different approaches, ranging from being extremely cautious in providing recommendations other than generic statements to proposing adaptation of previously available guidelines to confront the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. After the early phase, guidance focused on reduction of infection transmission and service delivery. Guidance did not provide advice on infection prevention via vaccination programmes and service access strategies tailored to individuals with substance use disorders.

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.