• Katrin Arnold, Jessica Breuing, Monika Becker, Monika Nothacker, Edmund Neugebauer, Jochen Schmitt, and Stefanie Deckert.
• Zentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung (ZEGV), Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
• Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2019 Nov 1; 147-148: 34-44.

BackgroundEvidence-based and formally consensus-based clinical practice guidelines (S3-CPGs) are a valuable source for the development of quality indicators (QIs) in Germany. While deriving QIs from guideline recommendations is a mandatory part of the development of S3-CPGs within the National Program for Disease Management Guidelines (DMGP) and the German Guideline Program in Oncology (GGPO), there is no such obligation in the guideline program of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) (MS program). Despite that, several S3-CPGs in the MS program have been published with QIs in the last years while some DMGP and one GGPO S3 guidelines have failed to meet this requirement. From the perspective of the guideline authors of all three mentioned programs, the present qualitative study examined why S3-CPGs do or do not contain QIs and explored the factors perceived by authors as either facilitating or hampering in the QI development process.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with authors of 22 S3-CPGs, 11 of which represented guidelines containing QIs and 11 of which represented guidelines without QIs. Authors of guidelines containing QIs (n=11) were asked about the perceived decisive reasons for formulating QIs and about facilitators and barriers during the QI development process. Authors of guidelines without QIs (n=11) gave reasons for not formulating QIs. Interviews were analyzed using structuring qualitative content analysis.ResultsWithin the MS program, not formulating QIs was mainly attributed to the lack of a mandatory requirement and to insufficient funding of guideline projects. Amongst DMGP authors, a low priority of QI development prevailed, which was, for example, due to already existing QIs or to their lacking implementation. In the GGPO guideline examined, not formulating QIs was due to the guideline topic (prevention) - for this topic, there was a lack of suitable evidence and data sources. If QIs were developed, the most important facilitating factor in the development process, across all programs, was the methodological support provided by the guideline program. Important hampering factors included the additional time required for QI development and concerns regarding the implementation of many potential QIs, especially due to a lack of data availability.DiscussionFor regular development of QIs within S3-CPG projects, the incorporation of such a requirement in the guideline program is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition. Other pivotal factors include systematic methodological support, adequate financial and staff resources and the perceived meaningfulness and relevance of guideline-based QI development, measured in terms of the actual implementation of already existing QIs.ConclusionThe study reveals starting points for measures to strengthen the consideration of QI development in German S3-CPG projects, especially within the MS program. Without substantial structural changes, especially of the resources of guideline groups, and without an overall concept covering the entire process from QI development to QI implementation, guideline-based QI development will remain heavily dependent on the (self-)motivation of guideline groups.Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

22 keywords...

hide…