Thomas Piggott1, Miranda Langendam2, Elena Parmelli3, Jan Adolfsson4, Elie A Akl1,5, David Armstrong6,7, Jeffrey Braithwaite8, Romina Brignardello-Petersen1, Jan Brozek1, Jolanta Gore-Booth9, Markus Follmann10, Zbigniew Leś11, Joerg J Meerpohl12, Luciana Neamţiu13, Monika Nothacker14, Amir Qaseem15, Paolo Giorgi Rossi16, Zuleika Saz-Parkinson13, Philip van der Wees17,18, Holger J Schünemann19,20,21. 1. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 3. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Via E. Fermi 2749 - TP 127, I-21027, Ispra, VA, Italy. Elena.PARMELLI@ec.europa.eu. 4. Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, Sweden & The Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. 6. Farncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. 7. Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. 8. Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, Sydney, 2109, Australia. 9. Digestive Cancers Europe, Brussels, Belgium. 10. German Cancer Society, Heidelberg, Germany. 11. Evidence Prime, Kraków, Poland. 12. Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 13. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Via E. Fermi 2749 - TP 127, I-21027, Ispra, VA, Italy. 14. Institute of Medical Knowledge Management, Association of the Scientific Medical Societies, Frankfurt, Germany. 15. American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 16. Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale - IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 17. Radboud University Medical Center, Department of IQ healthcare and Rehabilitation, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 18. The George Washington University, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Clinical Research & Leadership, Washington, D.C., USA. 19. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada. schuneh@mcmaster.ca. 20. Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. schuneh@mcmaster.ca. 21. Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. schuneh@mcmaster.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although quality indicators are frequently derived from guidelines, there is a substantial gap in collaboration between the corresponding parties. To optimise workflow, guideline recommendations and quality assurance should be aligned methodologically and practically. Learning from the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC), our objective was to bring the key knowledge and most important considerations from both worlds together to inform European Commission future initiatives. METHODS: We undertook several steps to address the problem. First, we conducted a feasibility study that included a survey, interviews and a review of manuals for an integrated guideline and quality assurance (QA) scheme that would support the European Commission. The feasibility study drew from an assessment of the ECIBC experience that followed commonly applied strategies leading to separation of the guideline and QA development processes. Secondly, we used results of a systematic review to inform our understanding of methodologies for integrating guideline and QA development. We then, in a third step, used the findings to prepare an evidence brief and identify key aspects of a methodological framework for integrating guidelines QA through meetings with key informants. RESULTS: Seven key themes emerged to be taken into account for integrating guidelines and QA schemes: (1) evidence-based integrated guideline and QA frameworks are possible, (2) transparency is key in clearly documenting the source and rationale for quality indicators, (3) intellectual and financial interests should be declared and managed appropriately, (4) selection processes and criteria for quality indicators need further refinement, (5) clear guidance on retirement of quality indicators should be included, (6) risks of an integrated guideline and QA Group can be mitigated, and (7) an extension of the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist should incorporate QA considerations. DISCUSSION: We concluded that the work of guideline and QA developers can be integrated under a common methodological framework and we provided key findings and recommendations. These two worlds, that are fundamental to improving health, can both benefit from integration.
BACKGROUND: Although quality indicators are frequently derived from guidelines, there is a substantial gap in collaboration between the corresponding parties. To optimise workflow, guideline recommendations and quality assurance should be aligned methodologically and practically. Learning from the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC), our objective was to bring the key knowledge and most important considerations from both worlds together to inform European Commission future initiatives. METHODS: We undertook several steps to address the problem. First, we conducted a feasibility study that included a survey, interviews and a review of manuals for an integrated guideline and quality assurance (QA) scheme that would support the European Commission. The feasibility study drew from an assessment of the ECIBC experience that followed commonly applied strategies leading to separation of the guideline and QA development processes. Secondly, we used results of a systematic review to inform our understanding of methodologies for integrating guideline and QA development. We then, in a third step, used the findings to prepare an evidence brief and identify key aspects of a methodological framework for integrating guidelines QA through meetings with key informants. RESULTS: Seven key themes emerged to be taken into account for integrating guidelines and QA schemes: (1) evidence-based integrated guideline and QA frameworks are possible, (2) transparency is key in clearly documenting the source and rationale for quality indicators, (3) intellectual and financial interests should be declared and managed appropriately, (4) selection processes and criteria for quality indicators need further refinement, (5) clear guidance on retirement of quality indicators should be included, (6) risks of an integrated guideline and QA Group can be mitigated, and (7) an extension of the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist should incorporate QA considerations. DISCUSSION: We concluded that the work of guideline and QA developers can be integrated under a common methodological framework and we provided key findings and recommendations. These two worlds, that are fundamental to improving health, can both benefit from integration.
Authors: David Reeves; Tim Doran; Jose M Valderas; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Paul Trueman; Matt Sutton; Stephen Campbell; Helen Lester Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-04-06
Authors: Holger J Schünemann; Lubna A Al-Ansary; Frode Forland; Sonja Kersten; Jorma Komulainen; Ina B Kopp; Fergus Macbeth; Susan M Phillips; Craig Robbins; Philip van der Wees; Amir Qaseem Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Elena Parmelli; Laura Amato; Andrew D Oxman; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Massimo Brunetti; Jenny Moberg; Francesco Nonino; Silvia Pregno; Carlo Saitto; Holger J Schünemann; Marina Davoli Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2017-06-28 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann; Jenny Moberg; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Elie A Akl; Marina Davoli; Shaun Treweek; Reem A Mustafa; Gabriel Rada; Sarah Rosenbaum; Angela Morelli; Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-06-28
Authors: Pablo Alonso-Coello; Andrew D Oxman; Jenny Moberg; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Elie A Akl; Marina Davoli; Shaun Treweek; Reem A Mustafa; Per O Vandvik; Joerg Meerpohl; Gordon H Guyatt; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-06-30
Authors: Jeremy M Kahn; Michael K Gould; Jerry A Krishnan; Kevin C Wilson; David H Au; Colin R Cooke; Ivor S Douglas; Laura C Feemster; Richard A Mularski; Christopher G Slatore; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2014-05
Authors: Steven Woolf; Holger J Schünemann; Martin P Eccles; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Paul Shekelle Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Martin P Eccles; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Paul Shekelle; Holger J Schünemann; Steven Woolf Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Anna R Gagliardi; Melissa C Brouwers; Valerie A Palda; Louise Lemieux-Charles; Jeremy M Grimshaw Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-03-22 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Alvin Rajkomar; Eyal Oren; Kai Chen; Andrew M Dai; Nissan Hajaj; Michaela Hardt; Peter J Liu; Xiaobing Liu; Jake Marcus; Mimi Sun; Patrik Sundberg; Hector Yee; Kun Zhang; Yi Zhang; Gerardo Flores; Gavin E Duggan; Jamie Irvine; Quoc Le; Kurt Litsch; Alexander Mossin; Justin Tansuwan; James Wexler; Jimbo Wilson; Dana Ludwig; Samuel L Volchenboum; Katherine Chou; Michael Pearson; Srinivasan Madabushi; Nigam H Shah; Atul J Butte; Michael D Howell; Claire Cui; Greg S Corrado; Jeffrey Dean Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2018-05-08