A framework of the desirable features of guideline implementation tools (GItools): Delphi survey and assessment of GItools

Implementation Science

Onil K Bhattacharyya³  Melissa C Brouwers¹  Anna R Gagliardi² 

[1] McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada;University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada;Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

关键词: Implementation;    Guidelines;   

Others  :  1146866
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-014-0098-8

 received in 2014-04-01, accepted in 2014-07-18,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Guidelines are the foundation for healthcare planning, delivery and quality improvement but are not consistently implemented. Few guidelines are accompanied by guideline implementation tools (GItools). Users have requested GItools, and developers have requested guidance on how to develop GItools. First it is necessary to characterize GItools. The purpose of this research was to generate a framework of desirable features of GItools.

Methods

Items representing desirable GItool features were generated by a cross-sectional survey of the international guideline community. Items were confirmed by 31 guideline developers, implementers and researchers in a two-round Delphi survey administered on the Internet. The resulting GItool framework was applied with a sample of GItools accompanying guidelines identified in the National Guideline Clearinghouse.

Results

The cross-sectional survey was completed by 96 respondents from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, The Netherlands, and various other countries. Seven of nine items were rated by the majority as desirable. A total of 31 panelists from 10 countries including Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States took part in a two-round Delphi survey. Ten items achieved consensus as desirable GItool features in round #1, and two additional items in round #2. A total of 13 GItools for Resource Planning, Implementation and Evaluation were identified among 149 guidelines on a variety of clinical topics (8.7%). Many GItools did not possess features considered desirable.

Conclusions

Inclusion of higher quality GItools in guidelines is needed to support user adoption of guidelines. The GItool framework can serve as the basis for evaluating and adapting existing GItools, or developing new GItools. Further research is needed to validate the framework, develop and implement instruments by which developers can apply the framework, and specify which guidelines should be accompanied by GItools.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Gagliardi et al.; licensee BioMed Central

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Weisz G, Cambrosio A, Keating P, Knaapen L, Schlich T, Tournay VJ: The emergence of clinical practice guidelines. Milbank Q 2007, 85(4):691-727.
• [2]Scott I: The evolving science of translating research evidence into clinical practice. Evid Based Med 2007, 12:4-7.
• [3]Shekelle P, Woolf S, Grimshaw JM, Schunemann H, Eccles MP: Developing clinical practice guidelines: reviewing, reporting, and publishing guidelines; updating guidelines; and the emerging issues of enhancing guideline implementability and accounting for comorbid conditions in guideline development. Implement Sci 2012, 7:62. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Schunemann HJ, Wiercioch W, Etxeandia I, Falavigna M, Santesso N, Mustafa R, Ventresca M, Brignardello-Petersen R, Laisaar KT, Kowalski S, Baldeh T, Zhang Y, Raid U, Neumann I, Norris SL, Thornton J, Harbour R, Treweek S, Guyatt G, Alonso-Coello P, Reinap M, Brozek J, Oxman A, Akl EA: Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise. CMAJ 2014, 186(3):E123-142.
• [5]Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, Fervers B, Graham ID, Grimshaw J, Hanna SE, Littlejohns P, Makarski J, Zitzelsberger L: AGREE II: Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63(12):1308-1311.
• [6]Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, Glasziou P, Bossuyt P, Chang S, Muti P, Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH: GRADE: assessing the quality of evidence for diagnostic recommendations. Evid Based Med 2008, 13(6):162-163.
• [7]Shiffman RN, Dixon J, Brandt C, Essaihi A, Hsiao A, Michel G, O’Connell R: The GuideLine Implementability Appraisal (GLIA): development of an instrument to identify obstacles to guideline implementation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2005, 5:23. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Siering U, Eikermann M, Hausner E, Hoffman-Eber W, Neugebauer EA: Appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e892915.
• [9]McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, Kerr EA: The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. NEJM 2003, 348(26):2635-2645.
• [10]Sheldon TA, Cullum N, Dawson D, Lankshear A, Lowson K, Watt I, West P, Wright D, Wright J: What’s the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients’ notes, and interviews. BMJ 2004, 329(7473):999.
• [11]Kryworuchko J, Stacey D, Bai N, Graham ID: Twelve years of clinical practice guideline development, dissemination and evaluation in Canada (1994 to 2005). Implement Sci 2009, 4:49. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Burgers JS, Grol R, Klazinga NS, Makela M, Zaat J: Towards evidence based clinical practice: an international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs. Int J Qual Health Care 2003, 15(1):31-45.
• [13]Gagliardi AR: “More bang for the buck”: exploring optimal approaches for guideline implementation through interviews with international developers. BMC Health Serv Res 2012, 12:404. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Mickan S, Burls A, Glasziou P: Patterns of “leakage” in the utilization of clinical guidelines: a systematic review. Postgrad Med J 2011, 87(1032):670-679.
• [15]McKillop A, Crisp J, Walsh K: Practice guidelines need to address the “how” and the “what” of implementation. Primary Health Care Res Dev 2012, 13(1):48-59.
• [16]Pronovost PJ: Enhancing physicians’ use of clinical guidelines. JAMA 2013, 310(23):2501-2.
• [17]Patel VL, Arocha JF, Diermeier M, Greenes RA, Shortliffe EH: Methods of cognitive analysis to support the design and evaluation of biomedical systems. J Biomed Inform 2001, 34(1):52-66.
• [18]Cochrane LJ, Olson CA, Murray S, Dupuis M, Tooman T, Hayes S: Gaps between knowing and doing: Understanding and assessing the barriers to optimal health care. J Cont Ed Health Prof 2007, 27(2):94-102.
• [19]Dobbins M, Hanna SE, Ciliska D, Manske S, Cameron R, Mercer SL, O’Mara L, DeCorby K, Robeson P: A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of knowledge translation and exchange strategies. Implement Sci 2009, 4:61. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Shekelle PG, Kravitz RL, Beart J, Marger M, Wang M, Lee M: Are non-specific guidelines potentially harmful? A randomized comparison of the effect of nonspecific versus specific guidelines on physician decision making. Health Serv Res 2000, 34(7):1429-1448.
• [21]Gagliardi AR, Brouwers MC, Palda VA, Lemieux-Charles L, Grimshaw JM: How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability. Implement Sci 2011, 6:26. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Gagliardi AR, Brouwers MC: Integrating guideline development and implementation: Analysis of guideline development manual instructions for generating implementation advice. Implement Sci 2012, 7:67. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Kelley K, Clark B, Brown V, Sitzia J: Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J Qual Health Care 2003, 15(3):261-266.
• [24]Jones J, Hunter D: Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995, 311(7001):376-380.
• [25]Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health Measurement Scales. A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK); 2003.
• [26]Dillman DA, Smyth JD: Design effects in the transition to web-based surveys. Am J Prev Med 2007, 32(5 Suppl):S90-S96.
• [27]Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH: Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 1984, 74(9):979-983.
• [28]Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M, Sibony O, Alberti C: Using and reporting Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 2011, 6:e20476.
• [29]Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg J, Bush PL, Henderson J, Sirett E, Wong G, Cargo M, Herbert CP, Seifer SD, Green LW, Greenhalgh T: Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: Implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q 2012, 90(2):311-346.
• [30]Kothari A, Wathen CN: A critical second look at integrated knowledge translation. Health Policy 2013, 109(2):187-191.