Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33468525›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

International experiences in the development and implementation of guideline-based quality indicators: a qualitative study.

Monika Nothacker, Marie Bolster, Mirco Steudtner, Katrin Arnold, Stefanie Deckert, Monika Becker, Ina Kopp, Jochen Schmitt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Consensus quality indicators for monitoring multiple sclerosis.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024
    Review
  6. Developing quality measures for non-pharmacological prevention and rehabilitation in primary health care for chronic conditions: a consensus study.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Monika NothackerInstitute for Medical Knowledge Management c/o Philipps University Marburg, Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany, Marburg/Berlin, Germany nothacker@awmf.org.ORCID 0000-0003-4928-7391
Marie BolsterInstitute for Medical Knowledge Management c/o Philipps University Marburg, Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany, Marburg/Berlin, Germany.
Mirco SteudtnerFakultät Gesundheits- und Pflegewissenschaften, Westsächsische Hochschule Zwickau, Zwickau, Germany.
Katrin ArnoldCenter for Evidence-based Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University, Dresden, Germany.
Stefanie DeckertCenter for Evidence-based Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University, Dresden, Germany.
Monika BeckerInstitut für Forschung in der Operativen Medizin, University Witten Herdecke, Witten, Germany.
Ina KoppInstitute for Medical Knowledge Management c/o Philipps University Marburg, Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany, Marburg/Berlin, Germany.
Jochen SchmittCenter for Evidence-based Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University, Dresden, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesEvidence-based clinical guidelines play an important role in healthcare and can be a valuable source for quality indicators (QIs). However, the link between guidelines and QI is often neglected and methodological standards for the development of guideline-based QI are still lacking. The aim of this qualitative study was to get insights into experiences of international authors with developing and implementing guideline-based QI.

settingWe conducted semistructured interviews via phone or skype (September 2017-February 2018) with guideline authors developing guideline-based QI.

participants15 interview participants from eight organisations in six European and North American countries.

methodsOrganisations were selected using purposive sampling with a maximum variation of healthcare settings. From each organisation a clinician and a methodologist were asked to participate. An interview guide was developed based on the QI development steps according to the 'Reporting standards for guideline-based performance measures' by the Guidelines International Network. Interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis with deductive and inductive categories.

resultsInterviewees deemed a programmatic approach, involvement of representative stakeholders with clinical and methodological knowledge and the connection to existing quality improvement strategies important factors for developing QI parallel to or after guideline development. Methodological training of the developing team and a shared understanding of the QI purpose were further seen conducive. Patient participation and direct patient relevance were inconsistently considered important, whereas a strong evidence base was seen essential. To assess measurement characteristics interviewees favoured piloting, but often missed implementation. Lack of measurability is still experienced a serious limitation, especially for qualitative aspects and individualised care.

conclusionOur results suggest that developing guideline-based QI can succeed either parallel to or following the guideline process with careful planning and instruction. Strategic partnerships seem key for implementation. Patient participation and relevance, measurement of qualitative aspects and piloting are areas for further development. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00013006).

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareQuality Indicators, Health CareHumansNorth AmericaQualitative ResearchQuality Improvementclinical auditprotocols & guidelinesqualitative researchquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID33468525
PMCPMC7817790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.