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

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

---

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