Unique Features of the INESSS-ONF Rehabilitation Guidelines for Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Responding to Users' Needs

Bayley, Mark; Lamontagne, Marie-Ève; Kua, Ailene; Marier-Deschênes, Pascale; Allaire, Anne-Sophie; Kagan, Corinne; Truchon, Catherine; Janzen, Shannon; Teasell, Robert; Swaine, Bonnie

doi:10.1097/htr.0000000000000428

Cited by 27 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nine of the 30 method articles described an approach based on one specific guideline [ 6 , 11 , 13 – 15 , 21 , 26 , 32 , 37 ]. While in the other articles, multiple guidelines and other sources were used in order to select potential quality indicators (domain 11).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven of the 30 approaches linked guideline recommendations to quality indicator development, albeit in different ways and for different purposes [ 11 , 14 , 15 , 21 , 26 , 32 , 37 ]. Examples of the different purposes are to integrate quantitative measurements of quality and performance into the development cycle of existing and future therapeutics (via guidelines) [ 32 ], to derive structured quality indicator and auditing protocols from formalized specifications of guidelines used in decision support systems [ 26 ] and to measure quality of care, adherence to guideline recommendations, internal quality management for medical institutions and for benchmarking with other institutions [ 14 , 21 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The key findings that will help with selecting elements of the approaches include the different ways evidence is used in the recommendation selection process for generating quality indicator. Some authors report using certainty in the evidence (or level of evidence) [ 5 , 15 , 22 , 32 – 34 ], others find using evidence challenging and confuse expert opinion with an interpretation of the evidence [ 12 , 13 , 40 ], and only a few approaches use strength of recommendation [ 6 , 11 , 14 ]. This supports the distinction between certainty of evidence and strength of the recommendation, and guidance how to apply these concepts in quality indicator development.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Except for the articles with an updated version there was no overlap in included studies between the original review and the update. Thus, in total, 30 method articles were included of which 17 were not included in the prior review [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25].…”

Section: Search and Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One article described both development of recommendations and the set of quality indicators for those recommendations. It was unclear, however, how recommendations and quality indicators were linked [15]. None of the articles reported a framework in which quality indicator development was part of the question formulation for developing the guideline recommendations.…”

Section: Linking Guideline Recommendations To Quality Indicator Develmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Approaches of integrating the development of guidelines and quality indicators: a systematic review

Langendam

Piggott

Nothacker

et al. 2020

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Guidelines and quality indicators (for example as part of a quality assurance scheme) aim to improve health care delivery and health outcomes. Ideally, the development of quality indicators should be grounded in evidence-based, trustworthy guideline recommendations. However, anecdotally, guidelines and quality assurance schemes are developed independently, by different groups of experts who employ different methodologies. We conducted an extension and update of a previous systematic review to identify, describe and evaluate approaches to the integrated development of guidelines and related quality indicators. Methods On May 24th, 2019 we searched in Medline, Embase and CINAHL and included studies if they reported a methodological approach to guideline-based quality indicator development and were published in English, French, or German. Results: Out of 16,034 identified records, we included 17 articles that described a method to integrate guideline recommendations development and quality indicator development. Added to the 13 method articles from original systematic review we included a total 30 method articles. We did not find any evaluation studies. In most approaches, guidelines were a source of evidence to inform the quality indicator development. The criteria to select recommendations (e.g. level of evidence or strength of the recommendation) and to generate, select and assess quality indicators varied widely. We found methodological approaches that linked guidelines and quality indicator development explicitly, however none of the articles reported a conceptual framework that fully integrated quality indicator development into the guideline process or where quality indicator development was part of the question formulation for developing the guideline recommendations. Conclusions In our systematic review we found approaches which explicitly linked guidelines with quality indicator development, nevertheless none of the articles reported a comprehensive and well-defined conceptual framework which integrated quality indicator development fully into the guideline development process.

show abstract