Reporting standards for guideline-based performance measures

Nothacker, Monika; Stokes, Tim; Shaw, Beth; Lindsay, Patrice; Sipilä, Raija; Follmann, Markus; Kopp, I.

doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0369-z

Cited by 60 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We added articles cited by the initial list, until this ceased to yield further candidate features. The final list of articles reviewed comprised 22 journal articles [4,7,8,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] and 17 reports and textbooks [10][11][12][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46].…”

Section: Stage 1: Identifying the Candidate Features To Include In Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

A modified Delphi study to identify the features of high quality measurement plans for healthcare improvement projects

Woodcock¹,

Adeleke²,

Goeschel

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The design and execution of measurement in quality improvement (QI) initiatives is often poor. Better guidance on "what good looks like" might help to mitigate some of the problems. We report a consensusbuilding process that sought to identify which features are important to include in QI measurement plans. Methods: We conducted a three-stage consensus-building approach: (1) identifying the list of features of measurement plans that were potential candidates for inclusion based on literature review and the study team's experience;(2) a two-round modified Delphi exercise with a panel of experts to establish consensus on the importance of these features; and (3) a small in-person consensus group meeting to finalise the list of features. Results: A list of 104 candidate questions was generated. A panel of 19 experts in the Delphi reviewed these questions and produced consensus on retaining 46 questions in the first round and on a further 22 in the second round. Thematic analysis of open text responses from the panellists suggested a number of areas of debate that were explicitly considered by the consensus group. The exercise yielded 74 questions (71% of 104) on which there was consensus in five categories of measurement relating to: design, data collection and management, analysis, action, and embedding. Conclusions: This study offers a consensus-based view on the features of a good measurement plan for a QI project in healthcare. The results may be of use to QI teams, funders and evaluators, but are likely to require further development and testing to ensure feasibility and usefulness.

show abstract

Section: Stage 1: Identifying the Candidate Features To Include In Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

A modified Delphi study to identify the features of high quality measurement plans for healthcare improvement projects

Woodcock¹,

Adeleke²,

Goeschel

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A study by Grilli et al 17 analyzed 431 guidelines developed by professional societies from 1988 to 1998 and found that only 12% provided information on the levels of evidence and grading of recommendations. Some recent studies 53 , a few conducted in countries such as Korea 13 and Brazil 21 , also identified shortcomings in the guideline development process as one of the aspects that most contributed to the low quality of guidelines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality assessment of clinical guidelines for the treatment of obesity in adults: application of the AGREE II instrument

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are various guidelines for the treatment of obesity, and thus the quality of these clinical guidelines has become a matter of concern. The objective was to describe and assess the quality of clinical guidelines for treatment of obesity in adults. We collected several studies, dated from 1998 to 2016, produced by different countries. The literature search included the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), Guidelines International Network (GIN), PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Web of Science, webpages of health institutions from different countries, and search sites, with the criterion: "clinical guidelines for treatment of obesity in adults and published until the 2016". The guidelines were assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II), according to the domains of the instrument. The search identified 21 guidelines: nine from Europe, six from North America, three from Latin America, and one each from Asia and Oceania and a transnational association. The Australian guideline had the best assessment. Of the six guidelines with the highest scores, five had been elaborated by the government sector responsible for the country's health. The domains "scope and purpose" and "clarity of presentation" had the highest score. Except for the Canadian guideline, the three guidelines drafted before the elaboration of AGREE II had the worst quality. In the domain "stakeholder involvement", only four guidelines (Australia, Scotland, France, and England) mentioned patient participation. Guideline development and quality enhancement are ongoing processes requiring systematic appraisal of the guideline production process and existing guidelines.

show abstract

“…Additional methodological expertise may be required for conducting these steps. Adequate methodology should be used to develop quality indicators that are valid and reliable for evaluating the quality of healthcare [24].…”

Section: Phase 3: Developing a Quality Indicatormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A quality indicator can be used for monitoring healthcare and to consequently assess changes in clinical practice [24]. Preferably, quality indicators are applicable to large groups of patients and are able to show 3e Determine feasibility, interpretability and acceptability of the PROM Feasibility is related to various aspects such as the time of administration (number of items), availability of translated version, and costs for using the PROM; interpretability is related to meaningful use of the scores on the PROM such as minimal clinical important difference; acceptability is related to support of patients and clinicians in using the PROM 3f Select suitable PROM(s) Selection of the PROM(s) based on the outcomes of step 3d and 3e, for which formal and informal consensus procedures can be used.…”

Section: Phase 3: Developing a Quality Indicatormentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a framework with tools to support the selection and implementation of patient-reported outcome measures

Wees¹,

Verkerk²,

Verbiest

et al. 2019

J Patient Rep Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) provide information on a patient's health status coming directly from the patient. Measuring PROs with patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) has gained wide interest in clinical practice for individual patient care, as well as in quality improvement, and for providing transparency of outcomes to stakeholders through public reporting. However, current knowledge of selecting and implementing PROMs for these purposes is scattered, and not readily available for clinicians and quality managers in healthcare organizations. The objective of this study is to develop a framework with tools to support the systematic selection, implementation and evaluation of PROs and PROMs in individual patient care, for quality improvement and public reporting. Methods: We developed the framework in a national project in the Netherlands following a user-centered design. The development process of the framework contained five iterative components: (a) identification of existing tools, (b) identification of user requirements and designing steps for selection and implementation of PROs and PROMs, (c) discussing a prototype of the framework during a national workshop, (d) developing a web version, (e) pretesting of the framework. A total of 40 users with different perspectives (clinicians, patient representatives, quality managers, purchasers, researchers) have been consulted. Results: The final framework is presented as the PROM-cycle that consists of eight steps in four phases: (1) goal setting, (2) selecting PROs and PROMs, (3) developing and testing of quality indicator(s), (4) implementing and evaluating the PROM(s) and indicator(s). Users emphasized that the first step is the key element in which the why, for whom and setting of the PROM has to be defined. This information is decisive for the following steps. For each step the PROM-cycle provides guidance and tools, with instruments, checklists, methods, handbooks, and standards supporting the process. Conclusion: We developed a framework to support the selection and implementation of PROs and PROMs. Each step provides guidance and tools to support the process. The PROM-cycle and its tools are publicly available and can be used by clinicians, quality managers, patient representatives and other experts involved in using PROMS. Through periodic evaluation and updates, tools will be added for national and international use of the PROM-cycle.

show abstract

Reporting standards for guideline-based performance measures

Cited by 60 publications

References 45 publications

A modified Delphi study to identify the features of high quality measurement plans for healthcare improvement projects

A modified Delphi study to identify the features of high quality measurement plans for healthcare improvement projects

Quality assessment of clinical guidelines for the treatment of obesity in adults: application of the AGREE II instrument

Development of a framework with tools to support the selection and implementation of patient-reported outcome measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About