Monika Nothacker1, Tim Stokes2, Beth Shaw3, Patrice Lindsay4, Raija Sipilä5, Markus Follmann6, Ina Kopp7. 1. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften-Institut für Medizinisches Wissensmanagement (AWMF-IMWI), Philipps-Universität Marburg, Karl-von-Frisch-Str.1, Marburg, 35043, Germany. nothacker@awmf.org. 2. Department of General Practice and Rural Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Manchester, UK. 4. Heart and Stroke Foundation, Ottawa, Canada. 5. The Finnish Medical Society Duodecim, Current Care Guidelines, Helsinki, Finland. 6. German Cancer Society, Berlin, Germany. 7. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften-Institut für Medizinisches Wissensmanagement (AWMF-IMWI), Philipps-Universität Marburg, Karl-von-Frisch-Str.1, Marburg, 35043, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) aims to promote high quality clinical guideline development and implementation. Guideline-based performance measures are a key implementation tool and are widely used internationally for quality improvement, quality assurance, and pay for performance in health care. There is, however, no international consensus on best methods for guideline-based performance measures. In order to address this issue, the G-I-N Performance Measures Working Group aimed to develop a set of consensus-based reporting standards for guideline-based performance measure development and re-evaluation. METHODS: Methodology publications on guideline-based performance measures were identified from a systematic literature review and analyzed. Core criteria for the development and evaluation process of guideline-based performance measures were determined and refined into draft standards with an associated rationale and description of the evidence base. In a two-round Delphi-process, the group members appraised and approved the draft standards. After the first round, the group met to discuss comments and revised the drafts accordingly. RESULTS: Twenty-one methodology publications were reviewed. The group reached strong consensus on nine reporting standards concerning: (1) selection of clinical guidelines, (2) extraction of clinical guideline recommendations, (3) description of the measure development process, (4) measure appraisal, (5) measure specification, (6) description of the intended use of the measure, (7) measure testing/validating, (8) measure review/re-evaluation, and (9) composition of the measure development panel. CONCLUSIONS: These proposed international reporting standards address core components of guideline-based performance measure development and re-evaluation. They are intended to contribute to international reporting harmonization and improvement of methods for performance measures. Further research is required regarding validity, acceptability, and practicality.
BACKGROUND: The Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) aims to promote high quality clinical guideline development and implementation. Guideline-based performance measures are a key implementation tool and are widely used internationally for quality improvement, quality assurance, and pay for performance in health care. There is, however, no international consensus on best methods for guideline-based performance measures. In order to address this issue, the G-I-N Performance Measures Working Group aimed to develop a set of consensus-based reporting standards for guideline-based performance measure development and re-evaluation. METHODS: Methodology publications on guideline-based performance measures were identified from a systematic literature review and analyzed. Core criteria for the development and evaluation process of guideline-based performance measures were determined and refined into draft standards with an associated rationale and description of the evidence base. In a two-round Delphi-process, the group members appraised and approved the draft standards. After the first round, the group met to discuss comments and revised the drafts accordingly. RESULTS: Twenty-one methodology publications were reviewed. The group reached strong consensus on nine reporting standards concerning: (1) selection of clinical guidelines, (2) extraction of clinical guideline recommendations, (3) description of the measure development process, (4) measure appraisal, (5) measure specification, (6) description of the intended use of the measure, (7) measure testing/validating, (8) measure review/re-evaluation, and (9) composition of the measure development panel. CONCLUSIONS: These proposed international reporting standards address core components of guideline-based performance measure development and re-evaluation. They are intended to contribute to international reporting harmonization and improvement of methods for performance measures. Further research is required regarding validity, acceptability, and practicality.
Authors: Béatrice Fervers; Jako S Burgers; Margaret C Haugh; Jean Latreille; Najoua Mlika-Cabanne; Louise Paquet; Martin Coulombe; Mireille Poirier; Bernard Burnand Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: H Wollersheim; R Hermens; M Hulscher; J Braspenning; M Ouwens; J Schouten; H Marres; R Dijkstra; R Grol Journal: Neth J Med Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 1.422
Authors: Eva Blozik; Monika Nothacker; Thomas Bunk; Joachim Szecsenyi; Günter Ollenschläger; Martin Scherer Journal: Int J Health Care Qual Assur Date: 2012
Authors: Jeffrey L Anderson; Paul A Heidenreich; Paul G Barnett; Mark A Creager; Gregg C Fonarow; Raymond J Gibbons; Jonathan L Halperin; Mark A Hlatky; Alice K Jacobs; Daniel B Mark; Frederick A Masoudi; Eric D Peterson; Leslee J Shaw Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Farifteh Firoozmand Duffy; William Narrow; Joyce C West; Laura J Fochtmann; David A Kahn; Trisha Suppes; John M Oldham; John S McIntyre; Ronald W Manderscheid; Paul Sirovatka; Darrel Regier Journal: Psychiatr Q Date: 2005
Authors: Elizabeth A Samuels; Gail D'Onofrio; Kristen Huntley; Scott Levin; Jeremiah D Schuur; Gavin Bart; Kathryn Hawk; Betty Tai; Cynthia I Campbell; Arjun K Venkatesh Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Thomas Woodcock; Yewande Adeleke; Christine Goeschel; Peter Pronovost; Mary Dixon-Woods Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Kathryn A Artis; Raed A Dweik; Bela Patel; Curtis H Weiss; Kevin C Wilson; Anna R Gagliardi; Sue Huckson; Monika Nothacker; Neill K J Adhikari; Andre Carlos Kajdacsy-Balla Amaral; Ian J Barbash; W Graham Carlos; Deena Kelly Costa; Mark L Metersky; Richard A Mularski; Michael W Sjoding; Carey C Thomson; Robert C Hyzy Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2019-12
Authors: Miranda W Langendam; Thomas Piggott; Monika Nothacker; Arnav Agarwal; David Armstrong; Tejan Baldeh; Jeffrey Braithwaite; Carolina Castro Martins; Andrea Darzi; Itziar Etxeandia; Ivan Florez; Jan Hoving; Samer G Karam; Thomas Kötter; Joerg J Meerpohl; Reem A Mustafa; Giovanna E U Muti-Schünemann; Philip J van der Wees; Markus Follmann; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Philip J van der Wees; Eva W Verkerk; Marjolein E A Verbiest; Marloes Zuidgeest; Carla Bakker; Jozé Braspenning; Dolf de Boer; Caroline B Terwee; Ildikó Vajda; Anna Beurskens; Simone A van Dulmen Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes Date: 2019-12-30