14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Reporting standards for guideline-based performance measures

      research-article
      , , , , , , , on behalf of the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) Performance Measures Working Group
      Implementation Science : IS
      BioMed Central
      Guideline, Guideline adherence, Performance measure, Quality indicator, Reporting standard, Process assessment (health care), Delphi technique

      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

          The 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.

          Methods

          Methodology 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.

          Results

          Twenty-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.

          Conclusions

          These 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 material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0369-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)

          In recent years, there has been an increased focus on placing patients at the center of health care research and evaluating clinical care in order to improve their experience and ensure that research is both robust and of maximum value for the use of medicinal products, therapy, or health services. This paper provides an overview of patients’ involvement in clinical research and service evaluation along with its benefits and limitations. We describe and discuss patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the trends in current research. Both the patient-reported experiences measures (PREMs) and patient and public involvement (PPI) initiative for including patients in the research processes are also outlined. PROs provide reports from patients about their own health, quality of life, or functional status associated with the health care or treatment they have received. PROMs are tools and/or instruments used to report PROs. Patient report experiences through the use of PREMs, such as satisfaction scales, providing insight into the patients’ experience with their care or a health service. There is increasing international attention regarding the use of PREMS as a quality indicator of patient care and safety. This reflects the ongoing health service commitment of involving patients and the public within the wider context of the development and evaluation of health care service delivery and quality improvement.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Defining and classifying clinical indicators for quality improvement.

            J Mainz (2003)
            This paper provides a brief review of definitions, characteristics, and categories of clinical indicators for quality improvement in health care. Clinical indicators assess particular health structures, processes, and outcomes. They can be rate- or mean-based, providing a quantitative basis for quality improvement, or sentinel, identifying incidents of care that trigger further investigation. They can assess aspects of the structure, process, or outcome of health care. Furthermore, indicators can be generic measures that are relevant for most patients or disease-specific, expressing the quality of care for patients with specific diagnoses. Monitoring health care quality is impossible without the use of clinical indicators. They create the basis for quality improvement and prioritization in the health care system. To ensure that reliable and valid clinical indicators are used, they must be designed, defined, and implemented with scientific rigour.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century

              B. Bloom (2002)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                00496421 286 2296 , 00493030105114 , nothacker@awmf.org
                Journal
                Implement Sci
                Implement Sci
                Implementation Science : IS
                BioMed Central (London )
                1748-5908
                15 January 2016
                15 January 2016
                2015
                : 11
                : 6
                Affiliations
                [ ]Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften—Institut für Medizinisches Wissensmanagement (AWMF-IMWI), Philipps-Universität Marburg, Karl-von-Frisch-Str.1, Marburg, 35043 Germany
                [ ]Department of General Practice and Rural Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
                [ ]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Manchester, UK
                [ ]Heart and Stroke Foundation, Ottawa, Canada
                [ ]The Finnish Medical Society Duodecim, Current Care Guidelines, Helsinki, Finland
                [ ]German Cancer Society, Berlin, Germany
                Article
                369
                10.1186/s13012-015-0369-z
                4714427
                26772173
                923d9b34-8df1-48bf-987d-330205e12ea6
                © Nothacker et al. 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 25 September 2015
                : 30 December 2015
                Funding
                Funded by: The work was not funded
                Funded by: Guideline International Network will pay the publication
                Categories
                Methodology
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Medicine
                guideline,guideline adherence,performance measure,quality indicator,reporting standard,process assessment (health care),delphi technique

                Comments

                Comment on this article