STANDING collaboration: a study protocol for developing clinical standards

Louise K. Wiles, Peter D. Hibbert, Jacqueline H. Stephens, Enrico Coiera, Johanna Westbrook, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Ric O. Day, Ken M. Hillman, William B. Runciman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Introduction Despite widespread availability of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), considerable gaps continue between the care that is recommended ('appropriate care') and the care provided. Problems with current CPGs are commonly cited as barriers to providing 'appropriate care'. Our study aims to develop and test an alternative method to keep CPGs accessible and up to date. This method aims to mitigate existing problems by using a single process to develop clinical standards (embodied in clinical indicators) collaboratively with researchers, healthcare professionals, patients and consumers. A transparent and inclusive online curated (purpose-designed, custom-built, wiki-Type) system will use an ongoing and iterative documentation process to facilitate synthesis of up-To-date information and make available its provenance. All participants are required to declare conflicts of interest. This protocol describes three phases: engagement of relevant stakeholders; design of a process to develop clinical standards (embodied in indicators) for 'appropriate care' for common medical conditions; and evaluation of our processes, products and feasibility. Methods and analysis A modified e-Delphi process will be used to gain consensus on 'appropriate care' for a range of common medical conditions. Clinical standards and indicators will be developed through searches of national and international guidelines, and formulated with explicit criteria for inclusion, exclusion, time frame and setting. Healthcare professionals and consumers will review the indicators via the wiki-based modified e-Delphi process. Reviewers will declare conflicts of interest which will be recorded and managed according to an established protocol. The provenance of all indicators and suggestions included or excluded will be logged from indicator inception to finalisation. A mixed-methods formative evaluation of our research methodology will be undertaken. Ethics and dissemination Human Research Ethics Committee approval has been received from the University of South Australia. We will submit the results of the study to relevant journals and offer national and international presentations.

LanguageEnglish
Article numbere014048
Pages1-9
Number of pages9
JournalBMJ Open
Volume7
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2017

Fingerprint

Clinical Protocols
Practice Guidelines
Conflict of Interest
Delivery of Health Care
South Australia
Research Ethics Committees
Ethics
Documentation
Research Design
Research Personnel
Guidelines

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2017. 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.

Cite this

Wiles, Louise K. ; Hibbert, Peter D. ; Stephens, Jacqueline H. ; Coiera, Enrico ; Westbrook, Johanna ; Braithwaite, Jeffrey ; Day, Ric O. ; Hillman, Ken M. ; Runciman, William B. / STANDING collaboration : a study protocol for developing clinical standards. In: BMJ Open. 2017 ; Vol. 7, No. 10. pp. 1-9.
@article{d0a148da74d94d4094d5ee3867705f7c,
title = "STANDING collaboration: a study protocol for developing clinical standards",
abstract = "Introduction Despite widespread availability of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), considerable gaps continue between the care that is recommended ('appropriate care') and the care provided. Problems with current CPGs are commonly cited as barriers to providing 'appropriate care'. Our study aims to develop and test an alternative method to keep CPGs accessible and up to date. This method aims to mitigate existing problems by using a single process to develop clinical standards (embodied in clinical indicators) collaboratively with researchers, healthcare professionals, patients and consumers. A transparent and inclusive online curated (purpose-designed, custom-built, wiki-Type) system will use an ongoing and iterative documentation process to facilitate synthesis of up-To-date information and make available its provenance. All participants are required to declare conflicts of interest. This protocol describes three phases: engagement of relevant stakeholders; design of a process to develop clinical standards (embodied in indicators) for 'appropriate care' for common medical conditions; and evaluation of our processes, products and feasibility. Methods and analysis A modified e-Delphi process will be used to gain consensus on 'appropriate care' for a range of common medical conditions. Clinical standards and indicators will be developed through searches of national and international guidelines, and formulated with explicit criteria for inclusion, exclusion, time frame and setting. Healthcare professionals and consumers will review the indicators via the wiki-based modified e-Delphi process. Reviewers will declare conflicts of interest which will be recorded and managed according to an established protocol. The provenance of all indicators and suggestions included or excluded will be logged from indicator inception to finalisation. A mixed-methods formative evaluation of our research methodology will be undertaken. Ethics and dissemination Human Research Ethics Committee approval has been received from the University of South Australia. We will submit the results of the study to relevant journals and offer national and international presentations.",
author = "Wiles, {Louise K.} and Hibbert, {Peter D.} and Stephens, {Jacqueline H.} and Enrico Coiera and Johanna Westbrook and Jeffrey Braithwaite and Day, {Ric O.} and Hillman, {Ken M.} and Runciman, {William B.}",
note = "Copyright the Author(s) 2017. 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.",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014048",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "1--9",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "British Medical Journal Publishing Group",
number = "10",

}

STANDING collaboration : a study protocol for developing clinical standards. / Wiles, Louise K.; Hibbert, Peter D.; Stephens, Jacqueline H.; Coiera, Enrico; Westbrook, Johanna; Braithwaite, Jeffrey; Day, Ric O.; Hillman, Ken M.; Runciman, William B.

In: BMJ Open, Vol. 7, No. 10, e014048, 01.10.2017, p. 1-9.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - STANDING collaboration

T2 - BMJ Open

AU - Wiles, Louise K.

AU - Hibbert, Peter D.

AU - Stephens, Jacqueline H.

AU - Coiera, Enrico

AU - Westbrook, Johanna

AU - Braithwaite, Jeffrey

AU - Day, Ric O.

AU - Hillman, Ken M.

AU - Runciman, William B.

N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2017. 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 - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - Introduction Despite widespread availability of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), considerable gaps continue between the care that is recommended ('appropriate care') and the care provided. Problems with current CPGs are commonly cited as barriers to providing 'appropriate care'. Our study aims to develop and test an alternative method to keep CPGs accessible and up to date. This method aims to mitigate existing problems by using a single process to develop clinical standards (embodied in clinical indicators) collaboratively with researchers, healthcare professionals, patients and consumers. A transparent and inclusive online curated (purpose-designed, custom-built, wiki-Type) system will use an ongoing and iterative documentation process to facilitate synthesis of up-To-date information and make available its provenance. All participants are required to declare conflicts of interest. This protocol describes three phases: engagement of relevant stakeholders; design of a process to develop clinical standards (embodied in indicators) for 'appropriate care' for common medical conditions; and evaluation of our processes, products and feasibility. Methods and analysis A modified e-Delphi process will be used to gain consensus on 'appropriate care' for a range of common medical conditions. Clinical standards and indicators will be developed through searches of national and international guidelines, and formulated with explicit criteria for inclusion, exclusion, time frame and setting. Healthcare professionals and consumers will review the indicators via the wiki-based modified e-Delphi process. Reviewers will declare conflicts of interest which will be recorded and managed according to an established protocol. The provenance of all indicators and suggestions included or excluded will be logged from indicator inception to finalisation. A mixed-methods formative evaluation of our research methodology will be undertaken. Ethics and dissemination Human Research Ethics Committee approval has been received from the University of South Australia. We will submit the results of the study to relevant journals and offer national and international presentations.

AB - Introduction Despite widespread availability of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), considerable gaps continue between the care that is recommended ('appropriate care') and the care provided. Problems with current CPGs are commonly cited as barriers to providing 'appropriate care'. Our study aims to develop and test an alternative method to keep CPGs accessible and up to date. This method aims to mitigate existing problems by using a single process to develop clinical standards (embodied in clinical indicators) collaboratively with researchers, healthcare professionals, patients and consumers. A transparent and inclusive online curated (purpose-designed, custom-built, wiki-Type) system will use an ongoing and iterative documentation process to facilitate synthesis of up-To-date information and make available its provenance. All participants are required to declare conflicts of interest. This protocol describes three phases: engagement of relevant stakeholders; design of a process to develop clinical standards (embodied in indicators) for 'appropriate care' for common medical conditions; and evaluation of our processes, products and feasibility. Methods and analysis A modified e-Delphi process will be used to gain consensus on 'appropriate care' for a range of common medical conditions. Clinical standards and indicators will be developed through searches of national and international guidelines, and formulated with explicit criteria for inclusion, exclusion, time frame and setting. Healthcare professionals and consumers will review the indicators via the wiki-based modified e-Delphi process. Reviewers will declare conflicts of interest which will be recorded and managed according to an established protocol. The provenance of all indicators and suggestions included or excluded will be logged from indicator inception to finalisation. A mixed-methods formative evaluation of our research methodology will be undertaken. Ethics and dissemination Human Research Ethics Committee approval has been received from the University of South Australia. We will submit the results of the study to relevant journals and offer national and international presentations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85031325742&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014048

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014048

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 1

EP - 9

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 10

M1 - e014048

ER -