Cargando…

Quality of clinical practice guidelines in delirium: a systematic appraisal

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accessibility and currency of delirium guidelines, guideline summary papers and evaluation studies, and critically appraise guideline quality. DESIGN: 1. Systematic literature search for formal guidelines (in English or French) with focus on delirium assessment and/or man...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bush, Shirley H, Marchington, Katie L, Agar, Meera, Davis, Daniel H J, Sikora, Lindsey, Tsang, Tammy W Y
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5353343/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28283488
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013809
_version_ 1782515096436604928
author Bush, Shirley H
Marchington, Katie L
Agar, Meera
Davis, Daniel H J
Sikora, Lindsey
Tsang, Tammy W Y
author_facet Bush, Shirley H
Marchington, Katie L
Agar, Meera
Davis, Daniel H J
Sikora, Lindsey
Tsang, Tammy W Y
author_sort Bush, Shirley H
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To determine the accessibility and currency of delirium guidelines, guideline summary papers and evaluation studies, and critically appraise guideline quality. DESIGN: 1. Systematic literature search for formal guidelines (in English or French) with focus on delirium assessment and/or management in adults (≥18 years), guideline summary papers and evaluation studies. 2. Full appraisal of delirium guidelines published between 2008 and 2013 and obtaining a ‘Rigour of Development’ domain screening score cut-off of >40% using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. DATA SOURCES: Multiple bibliographic databases, guideline organisation databases, complemented by a grey literature search. RESULTS: 3327 database citations and 83 grey literature links were identified. A total of 118 retrieved delirium guidelines and related documents underwent full-text screening. A final 21 delirium guidelines (with 10 being >5 years old), 12 guideline summary papers and 3 evaluation studies were included. For 11 delirium guidelines published between 2008 and 2013, the screening AGREE II ‘Rigour’ scores ranged from 3% to 91%, with seven meeting the cut-off score of >40%. Overall, the highest rating AGREE II domains were ‘Scope and Purpose’ (mean 80.1%, range 64–100%) and ‘Clarity and Presentation’ (mean 76.7%, range 38–97%). The lowest rating domains were ‘Applicability’ (mean 48.7%, range 8–81%) and ‘Editorial Independence’ (mean 53%, range 2–90%). The three highest rating guidelines in the ‘Applicability’ domain incorporated monitoring criteria or audit and costing templates, and/or implementation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Delirium guidelines are best sourced by a systematic grey literature search. Delirium guideline quality varied across all six AGREE II domains, demonstrating the importance of using a formal appraisal tool prior to guideline adaptation and implementation into clinical settings. Adding more knowledge translation resources to guidelines may improve their practical application and effective monitoring. More delirium guideline evaluation studies are needed to determine their effect on clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5353343
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53533432017-03-17 Quality of clinical practice guidelines in delirium: a systematic appraisal Bush, Shirley H Marchington, Katie L Agar, Meera Davis, Daniel H J Sikora, Lindsey Tsang, Tammy W Y BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice OBJECTIVE: To determine the accessibility and currency of delirium guidelines, guideline summary papers and evaluation studies, and critically appraise guideline quality. DESIGN: 1. Systematic literature search for formal guidelines (in English or French) with focus on delirium assessment and/or management in adults (≥18 years), guideline summary papers and evaluation studies. 2. Full appraisal of delirium guidelines published between 2008 and 2013 and obtaining a ‘Rigour of Development’ domain screening score cut-off of >40% using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. DATA SOURCES: Multiple bibliographic databases, guideline organisation databases, complemented by a grey literature search. RESULTS: 3327 database citations and 83 grey literature links were identified. A total of 118 retrieved delirium guidelines and related documents underwent full-text screening. A final 21 delirium guidelines (with 10 being >5 years old), 12 guideline summary papers and 3 evaluation studies were included. For 11 delirium guidelines published between 2008 and 2013, the screening AGREE II ‘Rigour’ scores ranged from 3% to 91%, with seven meeting the cut-off score of >40%. Overall, the highest rating AGREE II domains were ‘Scope and Purpose’ (mean 80.1%, range 64–100%) and ‘Clarity and Presentation’ (mean 76.7%, range 38–97%). The lowest rating domains were ‘Applicability’ (mean 48.7%, range 8–81%) and ‘Editorial Independence’ (mean 53%, range 2–90%). The three highest rating guidelines in the ‘Applicability’ domain incorporated monitoring criteria or audit and costing templates, and/or implementation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Delirium guidelines are best sourced by a systematic grey literature search. Delirium guideline quality varied across all six AGREE II domains, demonstrating the importance of using a formal appraisal tool prior to guideline adaptation and implementation into clinical settings. Adding more knowledge translation resources to guidelines may improve their practical application and effective monitoring. More delirium guideline evaluation studies are needed to determine their effect on clinical practice. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-03-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5353343/ /pubmed/28283488 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013809 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Evidence Based Practice
Bush, Shirley H
Marchington, Katie L
Agar, Meera
Davis, Daniel H J
Sikora, Lindsey
Tsang, Tammy W Y
Quality of clinical practice guidelines in delirium: a systematic appraisal
title Quality of clinical practice guidelines in delirium: a systematic appraisal
title_full Quality of clinical practice guidelines in delirium: a systematic appraisal
title_fullStr Quality of clinical practice guidelines in delirium: a systematic appraisal
title_full_unstemmed Quality of clinical practice guidelines in delirium: a systematic appraisal
title_short Quality of clinical practice guidelines in delirium: a systematic appraisal
title_sort quality of clinical practice guidelines in delirium: a systematic appraisal
topic Evidence Based Practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5353343/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28283488
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013809
work_keys_str_mv AT bushshirleyh qualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesindeliriumasystematicappraisal
AT marchingtonkatiel qualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesindeliriumasystematicappraisal
AT agarmeera qualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesindeliriumasystematicappraisal
AT davisdanielhj qualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesindeliriumasystematicappraisal
AT sikoralindsey qualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesindeliriumasystematicappraisal
AT tsangtammywy qualityofclinicalpracticeguidelinesindeliriumasystematicappraisal