Qualitätsindikatoren zu Nationalen VersorgungsLeitlinien (NVL) am Beispiel der NVL Herzinsuffizienz

Nothacker, Monika; Langer, Thomas; Weinbrenner, Susanne

doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2010.07.003

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The term “guideline-based QIs” specifically indicates QIs that are either generated from already available CPGs or coupled with the process of CPG development [10]. Besides assessing the quality of healthcare, these are important tools to assess the implementation of guideline recommendations [11–13]. However, the methodological approaches to the development of guideline-based QIs vary considerably [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guideline-based quality indicators—a systematic comparison of German and international clinical practice guidelines

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are relevant sources for generating quality indicators (QIs). The objective of this study was to compare guideline-based QIs of German and international CPGs and their underlying methodological approaches. Methods We conducted systematic searches in the guideline databases of G-I-N (Guidelines International Network) and NGC (National Guideline Clearinghouse) between February and June 2017 to identify international CPGs matching the topics of German evidence-based CPGs ( n = 35) that report QIs, which were identified in a preceding study. Additionally, we searched the websites of the particular CPG providers for separate documents with regard to QIs. We included evidence-based CPGs which report QIs. Reported QIs, the underlying guideline recommendations, and information on methods of development were extracted. The selection and extraction of CPGs were conducted by one reviewer and checked by another. For each matched pair of CPGs, we assessed whether the suggested QIs matched or were not directly comparable. Results Twenty-five international CPGs, originating from seven CPG providers in total, met the criteria for inclusion. They matched the topics of 18 German CPGs. This resulted in 30 CPG pairs for the comparison of QIs (some of the international CPGs matched the topic of more than one German CPG). We found 27 QI pairs with QIs “not different or slightly different”, corresponding to 13% (27 of 212) of the QIs in German CPGs and 16% (27 of 166) in international CPGs. Only two QI pairs were judged to be “different/inconsistent”. For 183 of 212 (86%) QIs from German CPGs and 137 of 166 (83%) QIs from international CPGs, no direct comparison could be made. An explicit link to one or more guideline recommendations was found for 136 of 152 (89%) QIs from German CPGs and 82 of 166 (49%) QIs from international CPGs. Some information on methods for the development of QIs existed for 12 of 18 (67%) German CPGs and 8 of 25 (32%) international CPGs. Conclusions The majority of QIs in German and international CPGs were not comparable. Various reasons for this are conceivable. More transparent reporting of the underlying methods for generating guideline-based QIs is needed. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0918-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guideline-based quality indicators—a systematic comparison of German and international clinical practice guidelines

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recommendations predominantly address health care processes (e.g., diagnostic and therapeutic interventions) which ideally are under the control of health care professionals. Structures and outcomes of care are more determined by influencing systemic factors and regional or national conditions [ 42 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting standards for guideline-based performance measures

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) aims to promote high quality clinical guideline development and implementation. Guideline-based performance measures are a key implementation tool and are widely used internationally for quality improvement, quality assurance, and pay for performance in health care. There is, however, no international consensus on best methods for guideline-based performance measures. In order to address this issue, the G-I-N Performance Measures Working Group aimed to develop a set of consensus-based reporting standards for guideline-based performance measure development and re-evaluation.MethodsMethodology publications on guideline-based performance measures were identified from a systematic literature review and analyzed. Core criteria for the development and evaluation process of guideline-based performance measures were determined and refined into draft standards with an associated rationale and description of the evidence base. In a two-round Delphi-process, the group members appraised and approved the draft standards. After the first round, the group met to discuss comments and revised the drafts accordingly.ResultsTwenty-one methodology publications were reviewed. The group reached strong consensus on nine reporting standards concerning: (1) selection of clinical guidelines, (2) extraction of clinical guideline recommendations, (3) description of the measure development process, (4) measure appraisal, (5) measure specification, (6) description of the intended use of the measure, (7) measure testing/validating, (8) measure review/re-evaluation, and (9) composition of the measure development panel.ConclusionsThese proposed international reporting standards address core components of guideline-based performance measure development and re-evaluation. They are intended to contribute to international reporting harmonization and improvement of methods for performance measures. Further research is required regarding validity, acceptability, and practicality.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0369-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…The term “guideline-based QIs” indicates in particular QIs that are either generated from already available CPGs or coupled with the process of CPG development [ 10 ]. Besides assessing the quality of healthcare, these are important tools to assess the implementation of guideline recommendations [ 11 – 13 ]. However, the methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development vary considerably [ 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Particularly, the CPGs of the DMG and GGPO have a broad scope and cover various areas of medical care. For these CPGs, the development of guideline-based QIs is obligatory [ 11 – 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guideline-based quality indicators—a systematic comparison of German and international clinical practice guidelines: protocol for a systematic review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundQuality indicators (QIs) are used in assessing the quality of healthcare. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are relevant sources for generating QIs. In this context, QIs are important tools to assess the implementation of guideline recommendations. However, the methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development vary considerably.In Germany, the guideline classification scheme of the AWMF (German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies) differentiates between S1-, S2k-, S2e-, and S3-CPGs depending on the methodological approach. Thus, S3-CPGs are consensus- and evidence-based CPGs and have the highest methodological standard in Germany. An analysis of the status quo of reported QIs in S3-CPGs found 35 current S3-CPGs, which report 372 different QIs.Currently, there is no gold standard for the development of guideline-based QIs. To our knowledge, no studies have investigated to what extent guideline-based QIs from different CPGs that are related to the same topic are consistent. The objective of this study is to compare guideline-based QIs and their underlying methodological approaches of German S3-CPGs with those of topic-related international CPGs.MethodsBased on the previous identified German S3-CPGs (n = 35), which report quality indicators, we will conduct systematic searches in the guidelines databases of G-I-N (Guidelines International Network) and NGC (National Guideline Clearinghouse) to identify international CPGs matching the topics of the S3-CPGs. If necessary, we will search additionally the websites of the particular CPG providers for separate documents with regard to QIs. We will include evidence-based CPGs which report QIs. Reported QIs as well as methods of development and the rationale for QIs will be extracted and compared with those of the S3-CPGs.DiscussionThis study will be part of the project “Systematic analysis of the translation of guideline recommendations into quality indicators and development of an evidence- and consensus-based standard,” supported by the German Research Association (DFG). The results of this analysis will feed into a subsequent qualitative study, which will consist of structured interviews with developers of international CPGs. Further, the results will be considered in a consensus study on standards of the translation of guideline recommendations into quality indicators in Germany.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-017-0669-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Qualitätsindikatoren zu Nationalen VersorgungsLeitlinien (NVL) am Beispiel der NVL Herzinsuffizienz

Cited by 12 publications

References 29 publications

Guideline-based quality indicators—a systematic comparison of German and international clinical practice guidelines

Guideline-based quality indicators—a systematic comparison of German and international clinical practice guidelines

Reporting standards for guideline-based performance measures

Guideline-based quality indicators—a systematic comparison of German and international clinical practice guidelines: protocol for a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About