Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33627092›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2021

Guideline-based quality assurance: a conceptual framework for the definition of key elements.

Elena Parmelli, Miranda Langendam, Thomas Piggott, Jan Adolfsson, Elie A Akl, David Armstrong, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Markus Follmann, Zbigniew Leś and 7 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

17 authors.

Elena ParmelliEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749 - TP 127, I-21027, Ispra, Italy. Elena.PARMELLI@ec.europa.eu.
Miranda LangendamDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Thomas PiggottDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street, West Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada.
Jan AdolfssonSwedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, Sweden & The Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Elie A AklAmerican University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
David ArmstrongFarncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Jeffrey BraithwaiteAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Romina Brignardello-PetersenDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street, West Hamilton, ON, L8N 4K1, Canada.
Markus FollmannGerman Cancer Society, Berlin, Germany.
Zbigniew LeśEvidence Prime, Kraków, Poland.
Joerg J MeerpohlInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Luciana NeamtiuEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749 - TP 127, I-21027, Ispra, Italy.
Amir QaseemAmerican College of Physicians, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Paolo Giorgi RossiEpidemiology Unit, Azienda USL - IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Zuleika Saz-ParkinsonEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749 - TP 127, I-21027, Ispra, Italy.
Philip J van der WeesDepartment of Rehabilitation and IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Holger J SchünemannDepartment 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.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3211-8479

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2017, the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) started developing a methodological framework for a guideline-based quality assurance (QA) scheme to improve cancer quality of care. During the first phase of the work, inconsistency emerged about the use of terminology for the definition, the conceptual underpinnings and the way QA relates to health questions that are answered in guidelines. The objective of this final of three articles is to propose a conceptual framework for an integrated approach to guideline and QA development and clarify terms and definitions for key elements. This work will inform the upcoming European Commission Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (ECICC).

methodsA multidisciplinary group of 23 experts from key organizations in the fields of guideline development, performance measurement and quality assurance participated in a mixed method approach including face-to-face dialogue and several rounds of virtual meetings. Informed by results of a systematic literature review that indicated absence of an existing framework and practical examples, we first identified the relations of key elements in guideline-based QA and then developed appropriate concepts and terminology to provide guidance.

resultsOur framework connects the three key concepts of quality indicators, performance measures and performance indicators integrated with guideline development. Quality indicators are constructs used as a guide to monitor, evaluate, and improve the quality of the structure, process and outcomes of healthcare services; performance measures are tools that quantify or describe measurable elements of practice performance; and performance indicators are quantifiable and measurable units or scores of practice, which should be guided by guideline recommendations.

conclusionsThe inconsistency in the way key terms of QA are used and defined has confused the field. Our conceptual framework defines the role, meaning and interactions of the key elements for improving quality in healthcare. It directly builds on the questions asked in guidelines and answered through recommendations. These findings will be applied in the forthcoming ECICC and for the future updates of ECIBC. These are large-scale integrated projects aimed at improving healthcare quality across Europe through the development of guideline-based QA schemes; this will help in implementing and improving our approach.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareQuality of Health CareEuropeHumansQuality Assurance, Health CareResearch DesignGuidelinesHealthcare qualityQuality assuranceQuality indicatorsRecommendations

Identifiers

PMID33627092
PMCPMC7903784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.