Article

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

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

ABSTRACT 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.

0 Followers
 · 
70 Views
  • 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 · 16.38 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 in health care is widely recognised. Consumers can be involved in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material, through consultations to elicit their views or through collaborative processes. Consultations can be single events, or repeated events, large or small scale. They can involve individuals or groups of consumers to allow debate; the groups may be convened especially for the consultation or be established consumer organisations. They can be organised in different forums and through different media. We anticipated finding few comparative evaluations that reliably evaluated the effects of consumer involvement. To assess the effects of consumer involvement and compare different methods of involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines, and patient information material. We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group's Specialised Register (4 May 2006); the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to January Week 2 2006); EMBASE (1980 to Week 03 2006); CINAHL (1982 to December Week 2 2005), PsycINFO (1806 to January Week 3 2006); Sociological Abstracts (1952 to 24 January 2006); and SIGLE (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (1980 to 2003/1). We scanned reference lists from relevant articles and contacted authors. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials, interrupted time series analyses, and controlled before-after studies assessing methods for involving consumers in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines or patient information material. The outcome measures were: participation or response rates of consumers; consumer views elicited; consumer influence on decisions, healthcare outcomes or resource utilisation; consumers' or professionals' satisfaction with the involvement process or resulting products; impact on the participating consumers; costs. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed their quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for clarification and to seek missing data. We presented results in a narrative summary and pooled data as appropriate. Five randomised controlled trials of moderate or low methodological quality involving 1031 participants were included. There is moderate quality evidence that involving consumers in the development of patient information material results in material that is more relevant, readable and understandable to patients, without affecting their anxiety. This 'consumer-informed' material can also improve patients' knowledge. There is low quality evidence that using consumer interviewers instead of staff interviewers in satisfaction surveys can have a small influence on the survey results. There is very low quality evidence of telephone discussions and face-to-face group meetings engaging consumers better than mailed surveys in order to set priorities for community health goals, and resulting in different priorities being set for these goals. There is little evidence from comparative studies of the effects of consumer involvement in healthcare decisions at the population level. The studies included in this review demonstrate that randomised controlled trials are feasible for providing evidence about the effects of consulting consumers to inform these decisions.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2006; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004563.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
15 Downloads
Available from
May 29, 2014