Wiles Louise K, Hibbert Peter D, Stephens Jacqueline H, Coiera Enrico, Westbrook Johanna, Braithwaite Jeffrey, Day Ric O, Hillman Ken M, Runciman William B
Patient Safety and Healthcare Human Factors, Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health Sciences, Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
BMJ Open. 2017 Oct 11;7(10):e014048. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014048.
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.
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.
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.
尽管临床实践指南(CPG)已广泛可得,但推荐的护理(“适当护理”)与实际提供的护理之间仍存在相当大的差距。当前CPG存在的问题常被视为提供“适当护理”的障碍。我们的研究旨在开发并测试一种替代方法,以使CPG易于获取且保持最新。该方法旨在通过与研究人员、医疗保健专业人员、患者及消费者合作,利用单一流程制定临床标准(体现在临床指标中)来缓解现有问题。一个透明且包容的在线精选(专门设计、定制构建的维基类型)系统将使用持续且迭代的文档编制流程,以促进最新信息的综合并提供其来源。所有参与者都必须声明利益冲突。本方案描述了三个阶段:相关利益攸关方的参与;为常见医疗状况制定“适当护理”临床标准(体现在指标中)的流程设计;以及对我们的流程、产品和可行性进行评估。
将使用改良的电子德尔菲法就一系列常见医疗状况的“适当护理”达成共识。临床标准和指标将通过检索国内和国际指南来制定,并制定明确的纳入、排除、时间框架和环境标准。医疗保健专业人员和消费者将通过基于维基的改良电子德尔菲法对指标进行审查。审查者将声明利益冲突,这些冲突将根据既定方案进行记录和管理。从指标开始到最终确定,所有纳入或排除的指标及建议的来源都将被记录。将对我们的研究方法进行混合方法形成性评估。
已获得南澳大利亚大学人类研究伦理委员会的批准。我们将把研究结果提交给相关期刊,并在国内和国际上进行展示。