TY - JOUR
T1 - Approaches of integrating the development of guidelines and quality indicators
T2 - a systematic review
AU - Langendam, Miranda W.
AU - Piggott, Thomas
AU - Nothacker, Monika
AU - Agarwal, Arnav
AU - Armstrong, David
AU - Baldeh, Tejan
AU - Braithwaite, Jeffrey
AU - Castro Martins, Carolina
AU - Darzi, Andrea
AU - Etxeandia, Itziar
AU - Florez, Ivan
AU - Hoving, Jan
AU - Karam, Samer G.
AU - Kötter, Thomas
AU - Meerpohl, Joerg J.
AU - Mustafa, Reem A.
AU - Muti-Schünemann, Giovanna E. U.
AU - Van Der Wees, Philip J.
AU - Follmann, Markus
AU - Schünemann, Holger J.
N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2020. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.
PY - 2020/9/16
Y1 - 2020/9/16
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Guidelines
KW - Quality assurance
KW - Quality improvement
KW - Recommendations
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091128961&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s12913-020-05665-w
DO - 10.1186/s12913-020-05665-w
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32938461
AN - SCOPUS:85091128961
SN - 1472-6963
VL - 20
SP - 1
EP - 11
JO - BMC Health Services Research
JF - BMC Health Services Research
IS - 1
M1 - 875
ER -