Dataset Information

Development of a prioritisation tool for the updating of clinical guideline questions: the UpPriority Tool protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Due to a continuous emergence of new evidence, clinical guidelines (CGs) require regular surveillance of evidence to maintain their trustworthiness. The updating of CGs is resource intensive and time consuming; therefore, updating may include a prioritisation process to efficiently ensure recommendations remain up to date. The objective of our project is to develop a pragmatic tool to prioritise clinical questions for updating within a CG.

Methods and analysis

To develop the tool, we will use the results and conclusions of a systematic review of methodological research on prioritisation processes for updating and will adopt a methodological approach we have successfully implemented in a previous experience.We will perform a multistep process including (1) generation of an initial version of the tool, (2) optimisation of the tool (feasibility test of the tool, semistructured interviews, Delphi consensus survey, external review by CG methodologists and users and pilot test of the tool) and (3) approval of the final version of the tool.At each step of the process, we will (1) calculate absolute frequencies and proportions (quantitative data), (2) use content analysis to summarise and draw conclusions (qualitative data) and (3) draft a final report, discuss results and refine the previous versions of the tool. Finally, we will calculate intraclass coefficients with 95% CIs for each item and overall as indicators of agreement among reviewers.

Ethics and dissemination

We have obtained a waiver of approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee at the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau (Barcelona). The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journal and communicated to interested stakeholders.The tool could support the standardisation of prioritisation processes for updating CGs and therefore have important implications for a more efficient use of resources in the CG field.

SUBMITTER: Martinez Garcia L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5724084 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development of a prioritisation tool for the updating of clinical guideline questions: the UpPriority Tool protocol.

Martínez García Laura L Pardo-Hernandez Hector H Niño de Guzman Ena E Superchi Cecilia C Ballesteros Monica M McFarlane Emma E Penman Katrina K Posso Margarita M Roqué I Figuls Marta M Sanabria Andrea Juliana AJ Selva Anna A Vernooij Robin Wm RW Alonso-Coello Pablo P

BMJ open 20170803 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>Due to a continuous emergence of new evidence, clinical guidelines (CGs) require regular surveillance of evidence to maintain their trustworthiness. The updating of CGs is resource intensive and time consuming; therefore, updating may include a prioritisation process to efficiently ensure recommendations remain up to date. The objective of our project is to develop a pragmatic tool to prioritise clinical questions for updating within a CG.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>To deve ...[more]

PMID: 28775194

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe number and complexity of patients being admitted to hospitals is rising and some patients may not receive a full clinical pharmacy review or be reviewed as regularly as needed during their inpatient stay. This is a risk factor for medication errors. Clinical prioritisation identifies patients who are high-risk and most in need of a pharmacist review, targeting finite pharmacy resources to patients who will benefit the most.ObjectivesAssess and enhance clinical prioritisation within a hospital pharmacy department.MethodsThe study was conducted in a large urban academic teaching hospital. A cross-sectional survey of clinical pharmacists in the hospital was conducted to establish the patient clinical criteria they prioritise in their work. A clinical prioritisation tool was developed based on survey findings and was integrated into an existing electronic pharmacy care interface. A pre- and post-intervention study was conducted, consisting of data collection for five days pre- and five days post-implementation of the tool. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative data were analysed by thematic analysis.ResultsOf 39 eligible pharmacists, 37 (95%) responded to the survey. The top-rated prioritisation criteria, including medicines reconciliation tasks and high-risk medicines, helped to inform the content of the clinical prioritisation tool. Post-intervention, there were more Level 1 complex patients reviewed by pharmacists and fewer Level 3 stable patients compared to pre-intervention. Tool sensitivity ranged from 51 to 88%, depending on the experience of the pharmacist using the tool. High levels of satisfaction with clinical prioritisation were reported by those using the tool.ConclusionThis newly developed clinical prioritisation tool has the potential to support pharmacists in identifying and reviewing patients in a more targeted manner than practice prior to tool development. Continued development and validation of the tool is essential, with a focus on developing a fully automated tool.

Project description:BackgroundEvaluating the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines is essential before deciding which ones which could best inform policy or practice. One current method of evaluating clinical guideline quality is the research-focused AGREE II instrument. This uses 23 questions scored 1-7, arranged in six domains, which requires at least two independent testers, and uses a formulaic weighted domain scoring system. Following feedback from time-poor clinicians, policy-makers and managers that this instrument did not suit clinical need, we developed and tested a simpler, shorter, binary scored instrument (the iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist) designed for single users.MethodsContent and construct validity, inter-tester reliability and clinical utility were tested by comparing the new iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist with the AGREE II instrument. Firstly the questions and domains in both instruments were compared. Six randomly-selected guidelines on a similar theme were then assessed by three independent testers with different experience in guideline quality assessment, using both instruments. Per guideline, weighted domain and total AGREE II scores were calculated, using the scoring rubric for three testers. Total iCAHE scores were calculated per guideline, per tester. The linear relationship between iCAHE and AGREE II scores was assessed using Pearson r correlation coefficients. Score differences between testers were assessed for the iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist.ResultsThere were congruent questions in each instrument in four domains (Scope & Purpose, Stakeholder involvement, Underlying evidence/Rigour, Clarity). The iCAHE and AGREE II scores were moderate to strongly correlated for the six guidelines. There was generally good agreement between testers for iCAHE scores, irrespective of their experience. The iCAHE instrument was preferred by all testers, and took significantly less time to administer than the AGREE II instrument. However, the use of only three testers and six guidelines compromised study power, rendering this research as pilot investigations of the psychometric properties of the iCAHE instrument.ConclusionThe iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist has promising psychometric properties and clinical utility.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic and associated non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have affected all countries. With a scarcity of COVID-19 vaccines there has been a need to prioritize populations, but assessing relative needs has been challenging. The COVAX Facility allocates vaccines to cover 20% of each national population, followed by a needs assessment that considers five quantitative metrics alongside a qualitative assessment. The objective of this study was to identify the most important factors for assessing countries' needs for vaccines, and to weight each, generating a scoring tool for prioritising countries.MethodsThe study was conducted between March and November 2021. The first stage involved an online Delphi survey with a purposive and snowball sample of public health experts, to reach consensus on country-level factors for assessing relative needs for COVID-19 vaccines. The second stage involved a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to determine weights for the most important factors.ResultsResponses were received from 28 experts working across 13 different countries and globally. The most common job titles reported were director and professor, with most based in national public health institutes (n = 9) and universities (n = 8). The Delphi survey found 37 distinct factors related to needs. Nine of the most important factors were included in the DCE. Among these, the most important factor was the 'proportion of overall population not fully vaccinated' (with a mean weight of 19.5), followed by 'proportion of high-risk population not fully vaccinated' (16.1), 'health system capacity' (14.2), 'capacity to purchase vaccines' (11.9) and the 'proportion of the population clinically vulnerable' (11.3).ConclusionsSeveral factors exist, extending beyond those currently used, which may lead to some countries having a greater need for vaccines compared to others. By assessing relative needs, this scoring tool can build on existing methods to further the role of equity in global COVID-19 vaccine allocation.

Project description:Importance:Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may lack rigor and suitability to the setting in which they are to be applied. Methods to yield clinical practice guideline recommendations that are credible and implementable remain to be determined. Objective:To describe the development of AGREE-REX (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence), a tool designed to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guideline recommendations. Design, Setting, and Participants:A cross-sectional study of 322 international stakeholders representing CPG developers, users, and researchers was conducted between December 2015 and March 2019. Advertisements to participate were distributed through professional organizations as well as through the AGREE Enterprise social media accounts and their registered users. Exposures:Between 2015 and 2017, participants appraised 1 of 161 CPGs using the Draft AGREE-REX tool and completed the AGREE-REX Usability Survey. Main Outcomes and Measures:Usability and measurement properties of the tool were assessed with 7-point scales (1 indicating strong disagreement and 7 indicating strong agreement). Internal consistency of items was assessed with the Cronbach α, and the Spearman-Brown reliability adjustment was used to calculate reliability for 2 to 5 raters. Results:A total of 322 participants (202 female participants [62.7%]; 83 aged 40-49 years [25.8%]) rated the survey items (on a 7-point scale). All 11 items were rated as easy to understand (with a mean [SD] ranging from 5.2 [1.38] for the alignment of values item to 6.3 [0.87] for the evidence item) and easy to apply (with a mean [SD] ranging from 4.8 [1.49] for the alignment of values item to 6.1 [1.07] for the evidence item). Participants provided favorable feedback on the tool's instructions, which were considered clear (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.06]), helpful (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.00]), and complete (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.11]). Participants considered the tool easy to use (mean [SD], 5.4 [1.32]) and thought that it added value to the guideline enterprise (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.13]). Internal consistency of the items was high (Cronbach α = 0.94). Positive correlations were found between the overall AGREE-REX score and the implementability score (r = 0.81) and the clinical credibility score (r = 0.76). Conclusions and Relevance:This cross-sectional study found that the AGREE-REX tool can be useful in evaluating CPG recommendations, differentiating among them, and identifying those that are clinically credible and implementable for practicing health professionals and decision makers who use recommendations to inform clinical policy.

Project description:BackgroundA standardized discharge plan is important to continuous medical care and discharge management of stroke patients. Currently, there is a lack of high-quality, evidence-based discharge planning guidelines for stroke patients. Most existing discharge planning guidelines have been developed for other diseases and stroke-related guidelines focus more on prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation and less on discharge planning. Therefore, they do not provide a systematic and comprehensive answer to the key issues of discharge planning for stroke patients. To improve the level of recovery and quality of life of stroke patients, to better guide clinical caregivers in developing and implementing discharge plans, the Evidence-based Nursing Center of West China Hospital, Sichuan University and the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation have jointly initiated the development of the clinical practice guideline for discharge planning of patients with stroke.MethodsThe guideline development process is designed to follow the WHO handbook for guideline development and Guidelines 2.0. Evidence grading and guideline recommendations are based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). The key steps in developing the guideline include: (I) establishing the guideline working groups; (II) selecting the priority clinical questions; (III) evidence retrieval and evaluation; (IV) grading the quality of evidence; (V) forming recommendations; and (VI) external review.DiscussionThis guideline will follow the clinical characteristics and management priorities of stroke and will be developed by a multidisciplinary guideline development team, in strict accordance with the core principles and methods of guideline development. This guideline will provide an evidence-based reference for standardized discharge screening, assessment, discharge procedures, and outpatient follow up, so as to improve the quality of discharge services and standardize the discharge management of stroke patients, and ultimately improve their post-discharge rehabilitation and quality of life.Trial registrationThe guideline was registered at the Practice guidelines REgistration for transPAREncy. The registration No. is IPGRP-2022CN331.

Dataset Information

Development of a prioritisation tool for the updating of clinical guideline questions: the UpPriority Tool protocol.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Publications

Development of a prioritisation tool for the updating of clinical guideline questions: the UpPriority Tool protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets