Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35568920›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022

Developing guideline-based key performance indicators for recurrent miscarriage care: lessons from a multi-stage consensus process with a diverse stakeholder group.

Marita Hennessy, Laura Linehan, Rebecca Dennehy, Declan Devane, Rachel Rice, Sarah Meaney, Keelin O'Donoghue

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Involving Knowledge Users in Health Services Research: Collective Reflections and Learning From a National Evaluation of Recurrent Miscarriage Services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Marita HennessyPregnancy Loss Research Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College Cork, Cork, T12 DC4A, Ireland. maritahennessy@ucc.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7742-8118
Laura LinehanPregnancy Loss Research Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College Cork, Cork, T12 DC4A, Ireland.
Rebecca DennehyPregnancy Loss Research Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College Cork, Cork, T12 DC4A, Ireland.
Declan DevaneINFANT Research Centre, University College Cork, Cork University Maternity Hospital, Cork, T12 DC4A, Ireland.
Rachel RicePregnancy Loss Research Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College Cork, Cork, T12 DC4A, Ireland.
Sarah MeaneyNational Perinatal Epidemiology Centre, University College Cork, Cork University Maternity Hospital, Cork, T12 DC4A, Ireland.
Keelin O'DonoghuePregnancy Loss Research Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College Cork, Cork, T12 DC4A, Ireland.

Funding

Health Research Board ILP-HSR-2019-011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStandardised care pathways tailored to women/couples who experience recurrent miscarriage are needed; however, clinical practice is inconsistent and poorly organised. In this paper, we outline our processes and experiences of developing guideline-based key performance indicators (KPIs) for recurrent miscarriage care with a diverse stakeholder group which will be used to evaluate national services. To date, such exercises have generally only involved clinicians, with the need for greater stakeholder involvement highlighted.

methodsOur study involved six stages: (i) identification and synthesis of recommendations for recurrent miscarriage care through a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines; (ii) a two-round modified e-Delphi survey with stakeholders to develop consensus on recommendations and outcomes; (iii) four virtual meetings to develop this consensus further; (iv) development of a list of candidate KPIs; (v) survey to achieve consensus on the final suite of KPIs and a (vi) virtual meeting to agree on the final set of KPIs. Through participatory methods, participants provided feedback on the process of KPI development.

resultsFrom an initial list of 373 recommendations and 14 outcomes, 110 indicators were prioritised for inclusion in the final suite of KPIs: (i) structure of care (n = 20); (ii) counselling and supportive care (n = 7); (iii) investigations (n = 30); treatment (n = 34); outcomes (n = 19). Participants' feedback on the process comprised three main themes: accessibility, richness in diversity, streamlining the development process.

conclusionsIt is important and feasible to develop guideline-based KPIs with a diverse stakeholder group. One hundred and ten KPIs were prioritised for inclusion in a suite of guideline-based KPIs for recurrent miscarriage care. Insights into our experiences may help others undertaking similar projects, particularly those undertaken in the absence of a clinical guideline and/or involving a range of stakeholders.

Indexed as

Care qualityDelphi techniqueEarly pregnancy lossPatient and public involvementQuality improvementQuality indicators

Identifiers

PMID35568920
PMCPMC9107009

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.