[Method report 2007 of the Programme for National Disease Management Guidelines--background and content].

Arztliches Zentrum für Qualitit in der Medizin, Berlin.
Zeitschrift fü Arztliche Fortbildung und Qualitatssicherung 02/2007; 101(4):269-81.
Source: PubMed


The Programme for National Disease Management Guidelines (German DM-CPG Programme) was established in 2002 by the German Medical Association (umbrella organisation of the German Chambers of Physicians) and joined by the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF)--umbrella organisation of more than 150 professional societies--and by the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (NASHIP) in 2003. The programme provides a conceptual basis for disease management, focussing on high priority healthcare topics and aiming at the implementation of best practice recommendations for prevention, acute care, rehabilitation and chronic care. It is organised by the German Agency for Quality in Medicine, a founding member of the Guidelines International Network G-I-N. The main objective of the German DM-CPG Programme is to establish consensus among the medical professions on evidence-based key recommendations covering all sectors of healthcare provision and facilitating the coordination of care for the individual patient through time and across interfaces. Within the last year DM-CPGs have been published for asthma, COPD, type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease. In addition, experts from national patient self-help groups have been developing patient guidance based upon the recommendations for healthcare providers. The article describes background, methods and tools of the DM-CPG programme using the DM-CPG Method Report 2007.

11 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations. Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication. We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts. In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk. It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation. Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments. Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues.
    BMJ (online) 07/2004; 328(7454):1490. DOI:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 · 17.45 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical practice guidelines are regarded as powerful tools to achieve effective health care. Although many countries have built up experience in the development, appraisal, and implementation of guidelines, until recently there has been no established forum for collaboration at an international level. As a result, in different countries seeking similar goals and using similar strategies, efforts have been unnecessarily duplicated and opportunities for harmonisation lost because of the lack of a supporting organisational framework. This triggered a proposal in 2001 for an international guidelines network built on existing partnerships. A baseline survey confirmed a strong demand for such an entity. A multinational group of guideline experts initiated the development of a non-profit organisation aimed at promotion of systematic guideline development and implementation. The Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) was founded in November 2002. One year later the Network released the International Guideline Library, a searchable database which now contains more than 2000 guideline resources including published guidelines, guidelines under development, "guidelines for guidelines", training materials, and patient information tools. By June 2004, 52 organisations from 27 countries had joined the network including institutions from Oceania, North America, and Europe, and WHO. This paper describes the process that led to the foundation of the G-I-N, its characteristics, prime activities, and ideas on future projects and collaboration.
    Quality and Safety in Health Care 01/2005; 13(6):455-60. DOI:10.1136/qhc.13.6.455 · 2.16 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The importance of consumer involvement at all levels of the health services is widely recognised. This review shows that little research has been done to find the best ways of involving consumers in healthcare decisions at the population level. Most of the included trials compared consultations with consumers with no consultations with consumers. There is moderate quality evidence from two trials that involving consumers in the development of patient information material results in material that is more relevant, readable and understandable, without affecting anxiety. This 'consumer-informed' material can also improve knowledge. Two trials, which compared using consumer interviewers with staff interviewers as data collectors for patient satisfaction surveys, found small differences in satisfaction survey results, with less favourable results obtained when consumers were the interviewers. One trial comparing two informed consent documents, one developed with consumer input and the other developed by the trial investigators, showed that consumer input may have little if any impact on understanding of the trial described in the consent document. One trial, comparing two different methods for involving the public (telephone discussion and a face-to-face group meeting), showed that a face-to-face meeting is most likely to engage consumers and may result in different community health priorities.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2006; 3(3):CD004563. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004563.pub2 · 6.03 Impact Factor