Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Department for Evidence Based Health Service Research, Faculty of Health, Department of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Building 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
AWMF-Institute for Medical Knowledge Management c/o Philipps-University Marburg, Karl-von-Frisch-Straße 1, 35043, Marburg, Germany.
Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 12;7(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0669-2.
Quality indicators (QIs) are used in assessing the quality of healthcare. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are relevant sources for generating QIs. In this context, QIs are important tools to assess the implementation of guideline recommendations. However, the methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development vary considerably. In Germany, the guideline classification scheme of the AWMF (German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies) differentiates between S1-, S2k-, S2e-, and S3-CPGs depending on the methodological approach. Thus, S3-CPGs are consensus- and evidence-based CPGs and have the highest methodological standard in Germany. An analysis of the status quo of reported QIs in S3-CPGs found 35 current S3-CPGs, which report 372 different QIs. Currently, there is no gold standard for the development of guideline-based QIs. To our knowledge, no studies have investigated to what extent guideline-based QIs from different CPGs that are related to the same topic are consistent. The objective of this study is to compare guideline-based QIs and their underlying methodological approaches of German S3-CPGs with those of topic-related international CPGs.
Based on the previous identified German S3-CPGs (n = 35), which report quality indicators, we will conduct systematic searches in the guidelines databases of G-I-N (Guidelines International Network) and NGC (National Guideline Clearinghouse) to identify international CPGs matching the topics of the S3-CPGs. If necessary, we will search additionally the websites of the particular CPG providers for separate documents with regard to QIs. We will include evidence-based CPGs which report QIs. Reported QIs as well as methods of development and the rationale for QIs will be extracted and compared with those of the S3-CPGs.
This study will be part of the project "Systematic analysis of the translation of guideline recommendations into quality indicators and development of an evidence- and consensus-based standard," supported by the German Research Association (DFG). The results of this analysis will feed into a subsequent qualitative study, which will consist of structured interviews with developers of international CPGs. Further, the results will be considered in a consensus study on standards of the translation of guideline recommendations into quality indicators in Germany.
质量指标(QIs)用于评估医疗保健质量。基于证据的临床实践指南(CPGs)是生成 QIs 的相关来源。在这种情况下,QIs 是评估指南建议实施情况的重要工具。然而,基于指南的 QI 开发方法差异很大。在德国,AWMF(德国科学医学学会协会)的指南分类方案根据方法学方法将 CPG 分为 S1、S2k、S2e 和 S3-CPG。因此,S3-CPG 是基于共识和证据的 CPG,在德国具有最高的方法学标准。对报告的 S3-CPG 中当前 QIs 现状的分析发现,有 35 项现行的 S3-CPG 报告了 372 个不同的 QIs。目前,尚无开发基于指南的 QIs 的金标准。据我们所知,尚无研究调查来自同一主题的不同 CPG 的基于指南的 QIs 之间的一致性程度。本研究的目的是比较德国 S3-CPG 的基于指南的 QIs 及其基础方法与相关国际 CPG 的方法。
基于之前确定的报告质量指标的德国 S3-CPG(n=35),我们将在 G-I-N(指南国际网络)和 NGC(国家指南清理中心)的指南数据库中进行系统搜索,以确定与 S3-CPG 主题匹配的国际 CPG。如果需要,我们将另外搜索特定 CPG 提供商的网站,以获取有关 QIs 的单独文件。我们将包括报告 QIs 的基于证据的 CPG。将提取报告的 QIs 以及开发方法和 QIs 的基本原理,并与 S3-CPG 进行比较。
这项研究将是由德国研究协会(DFG)支持的项目“系统分析将指南建议转化为质量指标并制定基于证据和共识的标准”的一部分。该分析的结果将为随后的定性研究提供信息,该研究将由国际 CPG 开发人员进行结构化访谈组成。此外,该结果将在德国将指南建议转化为质量指标的标准的共识研究中进行考虑。