Impact of Two Studies on Future of NGC (Text Version)

Slide Presentation from the AHRQ 2011 Annual Conference

Impact of Two Studies on Future of NGC

Slide Presentation from the AHRQ 2011 Annual Conference

On September 19, 2011, Mary Nix made this presentation at the 2011 Annual Conference. Select to access the PowerPoint® presentation (1.1 MB). Plugin Software Help.

Slide 1

Impact of Two Studies on Future of the National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC)

AHRQ Annual Conference
Sept 19, 2011
1:30—3:00pm

Slide 2

What is the NGC?

• Online database of structured summaries of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), describing more than 40 attributes of CPGs, including underlying methodology used to develop each guideline.
• Freely available since 1999; Redesigned site launched July 2010.
• Currently has summaries for 2600 guidelines from over 200 different guideline developers.

Slide 3

Future of NGC

• Moderator: Mary Nix, AHRQ.
• Speakers:
  • Michelle Tregear, AFYA Inc.
  • Rick Shiffman, Yale School of Medicine.
• AHRQ Response: Mary Nix.
• Discussants: Panel + You.

Slide 4

2 AHRQ-commissioned Studies

• Evaluation of NGC program impact:
  • Has NGC had an impact? If so, how?
  • Not focused on Web site; focused on program.
• IOM study on developing trustworthy guidelines (sister study on systematic review).

Slide 5

Michelle Tregear, PhD
Rick Shiffman, MD

Slide 6

AHRQ Response

• Institute of Medicine (IOM) Standards for Developing Trustworthy Guidelines:
  • Recommendation: NGC provide clear indication of the extent to which CPGs adhere to standards for trustworthiness.
• Right now:
  • Over 2600 guidelines summaries from 203 developers.
  • How many would meet all the IOM standards for trustworthiness?
  • Zero!

Slide 7

Response to IOM

• It is not practical or possible for NGC to implement the IOM Committee's recommendation immediately and across the board.

Slide 8

Response to IOM

• NGC will be providing the indication:
  1. Working with experts to prioritize.
  2. Assessing methods, web options.
  3. Determining when.

Slide 9

Response to IOM: Specifics

• NGC Team:
  • Plan to phase in documenting adherence, starting with 3 to 5 that seem feasible and most critical to ensure trustworthiness.
    • Inputs from experts.
  • Conduct a small pilot using recent guidelines to determine which IOM standards they meet and where they fall short.
  • Make recommendations to AHRQ regarding how to proceed with implementation.

Slide 10

Key Response to IOM

Slide 11

AHRQ Response

• Evaluation Study—AHRQ Opportunities:
  • Increase physician awareness of NGC.
  • Revisit NGC's inclusion criteria.
  • Revisit NGC's age criterion.
  • Increase knowledge among guideline developers about how to create and report trustworthy guidelines.
  • Identify additional efforts to enhance the dissemination of guidelines.
  • Invest in major enhancements that will increase the value of NGC.

Slide 12

Evaluation Study Response

• AHRQ will work with the NGC team on:
  • Major enhancements (over next 2 years).
    • Customized site, E-mail (my NGC, my NQMC).
    • Indicate trustworthiness.
  • Adopting IOM definition.
  • Exploring changing inclusion criteria:
    • Systematic review.
    • Aging.

Slide 13

Evaluation Study Response

• AHRQ will consider in context of extremely tight budget:
  • Best ways to raise awareness among physicians.
  • Additional mechanisms for dissemination.
  • Its and NGC's role in helping guideline developers create and report trustworthy guidelines.

Slide 14

Questions??

Mary.Nix@ahrq.hhs.gov

Current as of December 2011

Internet Citation:

Impact of Two Studies on Future of NGC. Slide Presentation from the AHRQ 2011 Annual Conference (Text Version). December 2011. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/about/annualconf11/nix_schiffman_tregear/nix.htm