Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Sep 16;20(1):875. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05665-w.
Guidelines and quality indicators (for example as part of a quality assurance scheme) aim to improve health care delivery and health outcomes. Ideally, the development of quality indicators should be grounded in evidence-based, trustworthy guideline recommendations. However, anecdotally, guidelines and quality assurance schemes are developed independently, by different groups of experts who employ different methodologies. We conducted an extension and update of a previous systematic review to identify, describe and evaluate approaches to the integrated development of guidelines and related quality indicators.
On May 24th, 2019 we searched in Medline, Embase and CINAHL and included studies if they reported a methodological approach to guideline-based quality indicator development and were published in English, French, or German.
Out of 16,034 identified records, we included 17 articles that described a method to integrate guideline recommendations development and quality indicator development. Added to the 13 method articles from original systematic review we included a total 30 method articles. We did not find any evaluation studies. In most approaches, guidelines were a source of evidence to inform the quality indicator development. The criteria to select recommendations (e.g. level of evidence or strength of the recommendation) and to generate, select and assess quality indicators varied widely. We found methodological approaches that linked guidelines and quality indicator development explicitly, however none of the articles reported a conceptual framework that fully integrated quality indicator development into the guideline process or where quality indicator development was part of the question formulation for developing the guideline recommendations.
In our systematic review we found approaches which explicitly linked guidelines with quality indicator development, nevertheless none of the articles reported a comprehensive and well-defined conceptual framework which integrated quality indicator development fully into the guideline development process.
指南和质量指标(例如作为质量保证计划的一部分)旨在改善医疗保健服务的提供和健康结果。理想情况下,质量指标的制定应该基于基于证据的、值得信赖的指南建议。然而,据传闻,指南和质量保证计划是由不同的专家组独立制定的,这些专家组采用不同的方法。我们对以前的系统评价进行了扩展和更新,以确定、描述和评估综合制定指南和相关质量指标的方法。
我们于 2019 年 5 月 24 日在 Medline、Embase 和 CINAHL 中进行了检索,如果研究报告了基于指南的质量指标制定的方法学方法,并且以英文、法文或德文发表,则将其纳入研究。
在 16,034 条鉴定记录中,我们纳入了 17 篇描述了整合指南建议制定和质量指标制定方法的文章。除了原始系统评价的 13 篇方法文章外,我们还纳入了总共 30 篇方法文章。我们没有发现任何评估研究。在大多数方法中,指南是为质量指标制定提供证据的来源。选择建议的标准(例如证据水平或建议的强度)以及生成、选择和评估质量指标的标准差异很大。我们发现了将指南和质量指标制定明确联系起来的方法学方法,但是没有一篇文章报告了一个完全将质量指标制定整合到指南过程中的概念框架,或者质量指标制定是制定指南建议的问题表述的一部分。
在我们的系统评价中,我们发现了明确将指南与质量指标制定联系起来的方法,但没有一篇文章报告了一个全面而明确的概念框架,将质量指标制定完全整合到指南制定过程中。