An International Needs Assessment Survey of Guideline Developers Demonstrates Variability in Resources and Challenges to Collaboration between Organizations.

BACKGROUND: The development of rigorous, high-quality clinical guidelines increases the need for resources and skilled personnel within guideline-producing organizations. While collaboration between organizations provides a unique opportunity to pool resources and save time and effort, the collaboration presents its own unique challenges. OBJECTIVE: To assess the perceived needs and current challenges of guideline producers worldwide related to guideline development and collaboration efforts. DESIGN: Survey questions were developed by the Guidelines International Network and the US GRADE Network, pilot-tested among attendees of a guideline development workshop, and disseminated electronically using convenience and snowball sampling methods. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 171 respondents representing 30 countries and more than 112 unique organizations were included in this analysis. MAIN MEASURES: The survey included free-response, multiple-choice, and seven-point Likert-scale questions. Questions assessed respondents' perceived value of guidelines, resource availability and needs, guideline development processes, and collaboration efforts of their organization. KEY RESULTS: Time required to develop high-quality systematic reviews and guidelines was the most relevant need (median=7; IQR=5.5-7). In-house resources to conduct literature searches (median=4; IQR=3-6) and the resources to develop rigorous guidelines rapidly (median=4; IQR=2-5) were perceived as the least available resources. Difficulties reconciling differences in guideline methodology (median=6; IQR=4-7) and the time required to establish collaborative agreements (median=6; IQR=5-6) were the most relevant barriers to collaboration between organizations. Results also indicated a general need for improvement in conflict of interest (COI) disclosure policies. CONCLUSION: The survey identified organizational challenges in supporting rigorous guideline development, including the time, resources, and personnel required. Connecting guideline developers to existing databases of high-quality systematic reviews and the use of freely available online platforms may facilitate guideline development. Guideline-producing organizations may also consider allocating resources to hiring or training personnel with expertise in systematic review methodologies or utilizing resources more effectively by establishing collaborations with other organizations.

Clinical Decision Support System for Guidelines-Based Treatment of Gonococcal Infections, Screening for HIV, and Prescription of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis: Design and Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: The syndemic nature of gonococcal infections and HIV provides an opportunity to develop a synergistic intervention tool that could address the need for adequate treatment for gonorrhea, screen for HIV infections, and offer pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for persons who meet the criteria. By leveraging information available on electronic health records, a clinical decision support (CDS) system tool could fulfill this need and improve adherence to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) treatment and screening guidelines for gonorrhea, HIV, and PrEP. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to translate portions of CDC treatment guidelines for gonorrhea and relevant portions of HIV screening and prescribing PrEP that stem from a diagnosis of gonorrhea as an electronic health record-based CDS intervention. We also assessed whether this CDS solution worked in real-world clinic. METHODS: We developed 4 tools for this CDS intervention: a form for capturing sexual history information (SmartForm), rule-based alerts (best practice advisory), an enhanced sexually transmitted infection (STI) order set (SmartSet), and a documentation template (SmartText). A mixed methods pre-post design was used to measure the feasibility, use, and usability of the CDS solution. The study period was 12 weeks with a baseline patient sample of 12 weeks immediately prior to the intervention period for comparison. While the entire clinic had access to the CDS solution, we focused on a subset of clinicians who frequently engage in the screening and treatment of STIs within the clinical site under the name "X-Clinic." We measured the use of the CDS solution within the population of patients who had either a confirmed gonococcal infection or an STI-related chief complaint. We conducted 4 midpoint surveys and 3 key informant interviews to quantify perception and impact of the CDS solution and solicit suggestions for potential future enhancements. The findings from qualitative data were determined using a combination of explorative and comparative analysis. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare the differences between patient populations in the baseline and intervention periods. RESULTS: Within the X-Clinic, the CDS alerted clinicians (as a best practice advisory) in one-tenth (348/3451, 10.08%) of clinical encounters. These 348 encounters represented 300 patients; SmartForms were opened for half of these patients (157/300, 52.33%) and was completed for most for them (147/300, 89.81%). STI test orders (SmartSet) were initiated by clinical providers in half of those patients (162/300, 54%). HIV screening was performed during about half of those patient encounters (191/348, 54.89%). CONCLUSIONS: We successfully built and implemented multiple CDC treatment and screening guidelines into a single cohesive CDS solution. The CDS solution was integrated into the clinical workflow and had a high rate of use.

An Integrated Process for Co-Developing and Implementing Written and Computable Clinical Practice Guidelines.

The goal of this article is to describe an integrated parallel process for the co-development of written and computable clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to accelerate adoption and increase the impact of guideline recommendations in clinical practice. From February 2018 through December 2021, interdisciplinary work groups were formed after an initial Kaizen event and using expert consensus and available literature, produced a 12-phase integrated process (IP). The IP includes activities, resources, and iterative feedback loops for developing, implementing, disseminating, communicating, and evaluating CPGs. The IP incorporates guideline standards and informatics practices and clarifies how informaticians, implementers, health communicators, evaluators, and clinicians can help guideline developers throughout the development and implementation cycle to effectively co-develop written and computable guidelines. More efficient processes are essential to create actionable CPGs, disseminate and communicate recommendations to clinical end users, and evaluate CPG performance. Pilot testing is underway to determine how this IP expedites the implementation of CPGs into clinical practice and improves guideline uptake and health outcomes.

Development of an international glossary for clinical guidelines collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are often created through collaboration among organizations. The use of inconsistent terminology may cause poor communication and delays. This study aimed to develop a glossary of terms related to collaboration in guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A literature review of collaborative guidelines was performed to develop an initial list of terms related to guideline collaboration. The list of terms was presented to the members of the Guideline International Network Guidelines Collaboration Working Group, who provided presumptive definitions for each term and proposed additional terms to be included. The revised list was subsequently reviewed by an international, multidisciplinary panel of expert stakeholders. Recommendations received during this pre-Delphi review were implemented to augment an initial draft glossary. The glossary was then critically evaluated and refined through two rounds of Delphi surveys and a virtual consensus meeting with all panel members as Delphi participants. RESULTS: Forty-nine experts participated in the pre-Delphi survey, and 44 participated in the two-round Delphi process. Consensus was reached for 37 terms and definitions. CONCLUSION: Uptake and utilization of this guideline collaboration glossary by key organizations and stakeholder groups may facilitate collaboration among guideline-producing organizations by improving communication, minimizing conflicts, and increasing guideline development efficiency.

A memorandum of understanding has facilitated guideline development involving collaborating groups.

OBJECTIVE: Collaboration between groups can facilitate the development of high-quality guidelines. While collaboration is often desirable, misunderstandings can occur. One method to minimize misunderstandings is the pre-specification of terms of engagement in a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This study considered when an MOU may be most helpful, and which key elements should be included. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An international panel of representatives from guideline groups was convened. A literature review to identify publications and other documents relevant to the establishment of MOUs between two or more guideline groups, supplemented by available source documents, was used to inform development of a draft MOU resource. This was iteratively refined until consensus was achieved. RESULTS: The level of detail in an MOU may vary based on institutional preferences and the particular collaboration. Elements within an MOU include those pertaining to: (1) scope and purpose; (2) leadership and team; (3) methods and commitment; (4) review and endorsement; and (5) publication and dissemination. CONCLUSION: Since groups may have different expectations regarding how a collaboration will unfold, an MOU may mitigate preventable misunderstandings. The result may be a higher likelihood of producing a guideline without disruption and delay.

Summary of comments and recommendations from the CDC consultation on the HIV/AIDS Epidemic and prevention in the Hispanic/Latino community.

In April 2008, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) hosted a national consultation meeting of academic researchers, public health officials, service providers, and community leaders to examine the HIV/AIDS epidemic and prevention needs of Hispanics/Latinos in the United States and its territories. The consultation engaged key stakeholders to review available information on HIV-related behavioral research and prevention efforts, describe gaps in current HIV prevention programs and research on Hispanics/Latinos, and identify community and societal-level factors that can increase vulnerability of Hispanics/Latinos for acquiring or transmitting HIV infection. Recommendations were also made to CDC for future collaboration with the Hispanic/Latino community in areas of HIV prevention research and prevention programs. This article summarizes participants' recommendations for HIV prevention research, program and capacity building, policy and planning, and partnerships and communication. These recommendations will be used by CDC to inform the development of a National Plan of Action for HIV/AIDS prevention among Hispanics/Latinos, and can provide a framework for use by other federal and non-federal agencies, academic researchers, community-based organizations, and policymakers as they seek to curtail the HIV epidemic among Hispanics/Latinos.