The GuideLine Implementability Appraisal (GLIA): development of an instrument to identify obstacles to guideline implementation

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are not uniformly successful in influencing clinicians' behaviour toward best practices. Implementability refers to a set of characteristics that predict ease of (and obstacles to) guideline implementation. Our objective is to develop and validate a tool for appraisal of implementability of clinical guidelines. METHODS: Indicators of implementability were identified from the literature and used to create items and dimensions of the GuideLine Implementability Appraisal (GLIA). GLIA consists of 31 items, arranged into 10 dimensions. Questions from 9 of the 10 dimensions are applied individually to each recommendation of the guideline. Decidability and Executability are critical dimensions. Other dimensions are Global, Presentation and Formatting, Measurable Outcomes, Apparent Validity, Flexibility, Effect on Process of Care, Novelty/Innovation, and Computability. We conducted a series of validation activities, including validation of the construct of implementability, expert review of content for clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness, and assessment of construct validity of the instrument. Finally, GLIA was applied to a draft guideline under development by national professional societies. RESULTS: Evidence of content validity and preliminary support for construct validity were obtained. The GLIA proved to be useful in identifying barriers to implementation in the draft guideline and the guideline was revised accordingly. CONCLUSION: GLIA may be useful to guideline developers who can apply the results to remedy defects in their guidelines. Likewise, guideline implementers may use GLIA to select implementable recommendations and to devise implementation strategies that address identified barriers. By aiding the design and operationalization of highly implementable guidelines, our goal is that application of GLIA may help to improve health outcomes, but further evaluation will be required to support this potential benefit

Does Self-efficacy Influence the Application of Evidence-Based Practice?

Background: Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) is complex and consequently, even within organizations that have made efforts to promote EBP use, EBP is often underutilized by individual clinicians. Purpose: The aim of our study was to better understand the relationship between self-efficacy and EBP implementation in clinical environments that have undergone efforts to increase EBP utilization. We suggest that EBP is a set of behaviors that result from individuals acquiring, applying, and sharing new knowledge with others in the organization. We hypothesize, based upon a social cognitive theoretical approach, that these behaviors are influenced by clinician perception of self-efficacy. Methods: We analyzed data provided by a 2011 survey of clinicians working within a national sample of hospitals that were actively participating in the Clinical Practice Model Resource Center (CPMRC), a collaborative consortium of health care organizations working to guide the implementation of EBP into the work worlds of clinicians. Structural equation modeling was used to examine the relationships between the acquisition, application, and sharing of evidence, and self-efficacy. Results: Self-efficacy increased the acquisition of evidence and application of evidence. Self-efficacy did not exert a significant influence on sharing evidence. Acquisition of evidence increased both application of evidence and sharing of evidence. Application of evidence then increased sharing of evidence among sampled clinicians. Conclusions: Efforts to promote self-efficacy in clinicians are powerful in that they directly promote the acquisition and application of evidence, and indirectly encourage communication between clinicians in an effort to justify and reinforce new knowledge. Efforts to boost self-efficacy would benefit from a focus on helping clinicians become more comfortable with actions related to acquiring evidence and generating new knowledge

From evidence to action. Understanding clinical practice guidelines.

Good guidelines will help us to take evidence into practice. In a survey among Dutch orthopedic surgeons, development and use of evidence-based guidelines was perceived as one of the best ways of moving from opinion-based to evidence-based orthopedic practice. The increasing number of guidelines means that knowing how to make a critical appraisal of guidelines is now a key part of every surgeon's life. This is particularly true because guidelines use varying systems to judge the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. In this manuscript we discuss what a guideline is, where we can find guidelines, how to evaluate the quality of guidelines, and finally provide an example on the different steps of guideline development. Thus, we show that good guidelines are a summary of the best available evidence and that they provide a graded recommendation to help surgeons in evidence-based practic

The guideline implementability research and application network (GIRAnet): an international collaborative to support knowledge exchange: study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Modifying the format and content of guidelines may facilitate their use and lead to improved quality of care. We reviewed the medical literature to identify features desired by different users and associated with guideline use to develop a framework of implementability and found that most guidelines do not contain these elements. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate implementability tools.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We are launching the Guideline Implementability Research and Application Network (GIRAnet) to enable the development and testing of implementability tools in three domains: Resource Implications, Implementation, and Evaluation. Partners include the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) and its member guideline developers, implementers, and researchers. In phase one, international guidelines will be examined to identify and describe exemplar tools. Indication-specific and generic tools will populate a searchable repository. In phase two, qualitative analysis of cognitive interviews will be used to understand how developers can best integrate implementability tools in guidelines and how health professionals use them for interpreting and applying guidelines. In phase three, a small-scale pilot test will assess the impact of implementability tools based on quantitative analysis of chart-based behavioural outcomes and qualitative analysis of interviews with participants. The findings will be used to plan a more comprehensive future evaluation of implementability tools.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Infrastructure funding to establish GIRAnet will be leveraged with the in-kind contributions of collaborating national and international guideline developers to advance our knowledge of implementation practice and science. Needs assessment and evaluation of GIRAnet will provide a greater understanding of how to develop and sustain such knowledge-exchange networks. Ultimately, by facilitating use of guidelines, this research may lead to improved delivery and outcomes of patient care.</p

South African Guidelines Excellence (SAGE): Clinical practice guidelines - quality and credibility

In this editorial, the first in a series of six, we present issues critical to CPG development and uptake, relevant to South Africa (SA) and beyond. While recent local efforts to improve CPG quality and credibility in SA are commendable, opportunities to progress SA CPG quality and uptake are limited by the lack of a central, nationally recognised and accepted CPG development unit. Such a unit has the potential to significantly increase SA efforts to improve and standardise high-quality, credible CPG development, reporting and uptake. To this end, the Project SAGE (South African Guidelines Excellence) team is engaging in a 3-year stakeholder-driven process that aims to better understand the guideline development arena in SA, and improve the standard of local guideline development, adaptation, contextualisation, and ultimately implementation of primary healthcare guidelines.

The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis: an electronic guideline implementability appraisal

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical guidelines are intended to improve healthcare. However, even if guidelines are excellent, their implementation is not assured. In subfertility care, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) guidelines have been inventoried, and their methodological quality has been assessed. To improve the impact of the ESHRE guidelines and to improve European subfertility care, it is important to optimise the implementability of guidelines. We therefore investigated the implementation barriers of the ESHRE guideline with the best methodological quality and evaluated the used instrument for usability and feasibility.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We reviewed the ESHRE guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis to assess its implementability. We used an electronic version of the guideline implementability appraisal (eGLIA) instrument. This eGLIA tool consists of 31 questions grouped into 10 dimensions. Seven items address the guideline as a whole, and 24 items assess the individual recommendations in the guideline. The eGLIA instrument identifies factors that influence the implementability of the guideline recommendations. These factors can be divided into facilitators that promote implementation and barriers that oppose implementation. A panel of 10 experts from three European countries appraised all 36 recommendations of the guideline. They discussed discrepancies in a teleconference and completed a questionnaire to evaluate the ease of use and overall utility of the eGLIA instrument.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two of the 36 guideline recommendations were straightforward to implement. Five recommendations were considered simply statements because they contained no actions. The remaining 29 recommendations were implementable with some adjustments. We found facilitators of the guideline implementability in the quality of decidability, presentation and formatting, apparent validity, and novelty or innovation of the recommendations. Vaguely defined actions, lack of facilities, immeasurable outcomes, and inflexibility within the recommendations formed barriers to implementation. The eGLIA instrument was generally useful and easy to use. However, assessment with the eGLIA instrument is very time-consuming.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The ESHRE guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis could be improved to facilitate its implementation in daily practice. The eGLIA instrument is a helpful tool for identifying obstacles to implementation of a guideline. However, we recommend a concise version of this instrument.</p

A multinational survey of companion animal veterinary clinicians: How can antimicrobial stewardship guidelines be optimised for the target stakeholder?

Antimicrobial stewardship initiatives are widely regarded as a cornerstone for ameliorating the global health impact of antimicrobial resistance. Within companion animal health, such efforts have largely focused on development and dissemination of antimicrobial stewardship guidelines (ASGs). However, there have been few attempts to understand veterinarian attitudes towards and knowledge of ASGs or to determine how awareness regarding ASGs might best be increased. An online survey regarding ASGs was formulated for veterinarians who treat companion animals. The survey was distributed across 46 European and associated countries between 12 January and 30 June, 2022. In total, 2271 surveys were completed, with 64.9% of respondents (n = 1474) reporting awareness and usage of at least one ASG. Respondents from countries with greater awareness of ASGs tended to report more appropriate use of antimicrobials (Spearman's rank coefficient = 0.6084, P ≤ 0.001), with respondents from countries with country-specific ASGs tending to score highest across both awareness and appropriate use domains. Respondents prioritised guidance around antimicrobial choice (82.0%, n = 1863), duration of treatment (66.0%, n = 1499), and dosage (51.9%, n = 1179) for inclusion in future ASGs, with 78.0% (n = 1776) of respondents preferring ASGs to be integrated into their patient management system. Awareness of ASGs and their use in companion animal veterinary practice appears to be greater than previously reported, with respondents tending to report antimicrobial prescription decision making broadly in line with current clinical recommendations. However, further initiatives aimed at maximising accessibility to ASGs both within countries and individual veterinary practices are recommended. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.