BACKGROUND: There is currently a political enthusiasm for the development and use of clinical guidelines despite, paradoxically, there being relatively few healthcare issues that have a sound research evidence base. As decisions have to be made even where there is an undetermined evidence base and that limiting recommendations to where evidence exists may reduce the scope of guidelines, thus limiting their value to practitioners, guideline developers have to rely on various different sources of evidence and adapt their methods accordingly. This paper outlines a method for guideline development which incorporates a consensus process devised to tackle the challenges of a variable research evidence base for the development of a national clinical guideline on risk assessment and prevention of pressure ulcers. METHOD: To inform the recommendations of the guideline a formal consensus process based on a nominal group technique was used to incorporate three strands of evidence: research, clinical expertise, and patient experience. RESULTS: The recommendations for this guideline were derived directly from the statements agreed in the formal consensus process and from key evidence-based findings from the systematic reviews. The existing format of the statements that participants had rated allowed a straightforward revision to "active" recommendations, thus reducing further risk of subjectivity entering into the process. CONCLUSIONS: The method outlined proved to be a practical and systematic way of integrating a number of different evidence sources. The resultant guideline is a mixture of research based and consensus based recommendations. Given the lack of available guidance on how to mix research with expert opinion and patient experiences, the method used for the development of this guideline has been outlined so that other guideline developers may use, adapt, and test it further.
BACKGROUND: There is currently a political enthusiasm for the development and use of clinical guidelines despite, paradoxically, there being relatively few healthcare issues that have a sound research evidence base. As decisions have to be made even where there is an undetermined evidence base and that limiting recommendations to where evidence exists may reduce the scope of guidelines, thus limiting their value to practitioners, guideline developers have to rely on various different sources of evidence and adapt their methods accordingly. This paper outlines a method for guideline development which incorporates a consensus process devised to tackle the challenges of a variable research evidence base for the development of a national clinical guideline on risk assessment and prevention of pressure ulcers. METHOD: To inform the recommendations of the guideline a formal consensus process based on a nominal group technique was used to incorporate three strands of evidence: research, clinical expertise, and patient experience. RESULTS: The recommendations for this guideline were derived directly from the statements agreed in the formal consensus process and from key evidence-based findings from the systematic reviews. The existing format of the statements that participants had rated allowed a straightforward revision to "active" recommendations, thus reducing further risk of subjectivity entering into the process. CONCLUSIONS: The method outlined proved to be a practical and systematic way of integrating a number of different evidence sources. The resultant guideline is a mixture of research based and consensus based recommendations. Given the lack of available guidance on how to mix research with expert opinion and patient experiences, the method used for the development of this guideline has been outlined so that other guideline developers may use, adapt, and test it further.
Authors: Mary J Renfrew; Lisa Dyson; Gill Herbert; Alison McFadden; Felicia McCormick; James Thomas; Helen Spiby Journal: Health Expect Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Stephen T Casper; Kathleen E Bachynski; Michael E Buckland; Don Comrie; Sam Gandy; Judith Gates; Daniel S Goldberg; Kathryn Henne; Karen Hind; Daniel Morrison; Francisco Ortega; Alan J Pearce; Sean Philpott-Jones; Elizabeth Sandel; Ted Tatos; Sally Tucker; Adam M Finkel Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2021 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Susanne Coleman; E Andrea Nelson; Justin Keen; Lyn Wilson; Elizabeth McGinnis; Carol Dealey; Nikki Stubbs; Delia Muir; Amanda Farrin; Dawn Dowding; Jos M G A Schols; Janet Cuddigan; Dan Berlowitz; Edward Jude; Peter Vowden; Dan L Bader; Amit Gefen; Cees W J Oomens; Lisette Schoonhoven; Jane Nixon Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2014-05-21 Impact factor: 3.187