59
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Determination and quantification of content validity.

          M Lynn (1986)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review.

            Many computer software developers and vendors claim that their systems can directly improve clinical decisions. As for other health care interventions, such claims should be based on careful trials that assess their effects on clinical performance and, preferably, patient outcomes. To systematically review controlled clinical trials assessing the effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) on physician performance and patient outcomes. We updated earlier reviews covering 1974 to 1992 by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, INSPEC, SCISEARCH, and the Cochrane Library bibliographic databases from 1992 to March 1998. Reference lists and conference proceedings were reviewed and evaluators of CDSSs were contacted. Studies were included if they involved the use of a CDSS in a clinical setting by a health care practitioner and assessed the effects of the system prospectively with a concurrent control. The validity of each relevant study (scored from 0-10) was evaluated in duplicate. Data on setting, subjects, computer systems, and outcomes were abstracted and a power analysis was done on studies with negative findings. A total of 68 controlled trials met our criteria, 40 of which were published since 1992. Quality scores ranged from 2 to 10, with more recent trials rating higher (mean, 7.7) than earlier studies (mean, 6.4) (P<.001). Effects on physician performance were assessed in 65 studies and 43 found a benefit (66%). These included 9 of 15 studies on drug dosing systems, 1 of 5 studies on diagnostic aids, 14 of 19 preventive care systems, and 19 of 26 studies evaluating CDSSs for other medical care. Six of 14 studies assessing patient outcomes found a benefit. Of the remaining 8 studies, only 3 had a power of greater than 80% to detect a clinically important effect. Published studies of CDSSs are increasing rapidly, and their quality is improving. The CDSSs can enhance clinical performance for drug dosing, preventive care, and other aspects of medical care, but not convincingly for diagnosis. The effects of CDSSs on patient outcomes have been insufficiently studied.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project.

              (2003)
              International interest in clinical practice guidelines has never been greater but many published guidelines do not meet the basic quality requirements. There have been renewed calls for validated criteria to assess the quality of guidelines. To develop and validate an international instrument for assessing the quality of the process and reporting of clinical practice guideline development. The instrument was developed through a multi-staged process of item generation, selection and scaling, field testing, and refinement procedures. 100 guidelines selected from 11 participating countries were evaluated independently by 194 appraisers with the instrument. Following refinement the instrument was further field tested on three guidelines per country by a new set of 70 appraisers. The final version of the instrument contained 23 items grouped into six quality domains with a 4 point Likert scale to score each item (scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity and presentation, applicability, editorial independence). 95% of appraisers found the instrument useful for assessing guidelines. Reliability was acceptable for most domains (Cronbach's alpha 0.64-0.88). Guidelines produced as part of an established guideline programme had significantly higher scores on editorial independence and, after the publication of a national policy, had significantly higher quality scores on rigour of development (p<0.005). Guidelines with technical documentation had higher scores on that domain (p<0.0001). This is the first time an appraisal instrument for clinical practice guidelines has been developed and tested internationally. The instrument is sensitive to differences in important aspects of guidelines and can be used consistently and easily by a wide range of professionals from different backgrounds. The adoption of common standards should improve the consistency and quality of the reporting of guideline development worldwide and provide a framework to encourage international comparison of clinical practice guidelines.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
                BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6947
                2005
                27 July 2005
                : 5
                : 23
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Yale Center for Medical Informatics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
                [2 ]Yale School of Nursing, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
                Article
                1472-6947-5-23
                10.1186/1472-6947-5-23
                1190181
                16048653
                642fe1b2-69b1-49b7-ac0a-17e148df61e4
                Copyright © 2005 Shiffman et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 28 February 2005
                : 27 July 2005
                Categories
                Research Article

                Bioinformatics & Computational biology
                Bioinformatics & Computational biology

                Comments

                Comment on this article