Methods for the guideline-based development of quality indicators--a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Quality indicators (QIs) are used in many healthcare settings to measure, compare, and improve quality of care. For the efficient development of high-quality QIs, rigorous, approved, and evidence-based development methods are needed. Clinical practice guidelines are a suitable source to derive QIs from, but no gold standard for guideline-based QI development exists. This review aims to identify, describe, and compare methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We systematically searched medical literature databases (Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL) and grey literature. Two researchers selected publications reporting methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development. In order to describe and compare methodological approaches used in these publications, we extracted detailed information on common steps of guideline-based QI development (topic selection, guideline selection, extraction of recommendations, QI selection, practice test, and implementation) to predesigned extraction tables.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>From 8,697 hits in the database search and several grey literature documents, we selected 48 relevant references. The studies were of heterogeneous type and quality. We found no randomized controlled trial or other studies comparing the ability of different methodological approaches to guideline-based development to generate high-quality QIs. The relevant publications featured a wide variety of methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development, especially regarding guideline selection and extraction of recommendations. Only a few studies reported patient involvement.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Further research is needed to determine which elements of the methodological approaches identified, described, and compared in this review are best suited to constitute a gold standard for guideline-based QI development. For this research, we provide a comprehensive groundwork.</p

Knowledge translation on dementia: a cluster randomized trial to compare a blended learning approach with a "classical" advanced training in GP quality circles

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Thus far important findings regarding the dementia syndrome have been implemented into patients' medical care only inadequately. A professional training accounting for both, general practitioners' (GP) needs and learning preferences as well as care-relevant aspects could be a major step towards improving medical care. In the WIDA-study, entitled "Knowledge translation on dementia in general practice" two different training concepts are developed, implemented and evaluated. Both concepts are building on an evidence-based, GP-related dementia guideline and communicate the guideline's essential insights.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Both development and implementation emphasize a procedure that is well-accepted in practice and, thus, can achieve a high degree of external validity. This is particularly guaranteed through the preparation of training material and the fact that general practitioners' quality circles (QC) are addressed. The evaluation of the two training concepts is carried out by comparing two groups of GPs to which several quality circles have been randomly assigned. The primary outcome is the GPs' knowledge gain. Secondary outcomes are designed to indicate the training's potential effects on the GPs' practical actions. In the first training concept (study arm A) GPs participate in a structured case discussion prepared for by internet-based learning material ("blended-learning" approach). The second training concept (study arm B) relies on frontal medical training in the form of a slide presentation and follow-up discussion ("classical" approach).</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This paper presents the outline of a cluster-randomized trial which has been peer reviewed and support by a national funding organization – Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) – and is approved by an ethics commission. The data collection has started in August 2006 and the results will be published independently of the study's outcome.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials [ISRCTN36550981]</p