|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 151
F
Examples of Questionnaires for
Use in Priority Setting
This appendix includes two questionnaires that the Forum on Quality and
Effectiveness in Health Care might use to make better use of expert judgment in
selecting topics for practice guidelines. Each is suggested for consideration
rather than for adoption without further revision.
The first example is adapted from a questionnaire used by the Forum before
one meeting it convened to obtain practitioners' nomination and assessment of
potential guidelines topics in a broad clinical area. Respondents later met to
discuss the results and rank topics. The second example is the latest draft of a
questionnaire developed by David Eddy for testing at Kaiser Permanente of
Southern California TOPIC). For illustrative purposes, it includes sample
responses for a real topic. The questionnaire focuses on a single topic so a
respondent would have to fill out several questionnaires if he or she was being
asked to nominate more than one topic.
151
OCR for page 152
152
Instructions
SETTING PRIORITIES FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES
PRIORITY-SETTING QUESTIONNAIRE NO. 1
ADAPTATION OF FORM USED BY AHCPR
A. Please list in order of importance the five clinical topics you would
recommend to the Forum as subjects for guidelines development. Be as precise
about the topics as you can (e.g., management of postoperative pain rather than
management of pain).
B. After each topic, first rate its importance in terms of each of the
identified criteria (1 = very important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = somewhat
unimportant, 4 = very unimportant).
C. Then, rate the prospect that a guideline would make recommendations
that would change practitioner or patient behavior in ways that would reduce
illness burden, cost, or variability of practice (1 = very likely, 2 = likely, 3 =
somewhat unlikely, 4 = very unlikely).
D. Next, rate the availability of scientific evidence on which to base practice
recommendations (1 = good, 2 = somewhat limited, 3 = poor).
Questions
Topic
Criterion
Illness burden
Cost
Variability in practice
Prevalence
Relevance to Medicare
Relevance to Medicaid
ImportanceProspects for change
(1 - , see instructions)
(1 - , see instructions)
Availability of relevant scientific evidence (1-3, see instructions)
Are sound existing guidelines available? Yes/No/Don't Know (circle one)
If yes, please identify source:
2. [Repeat for additional topics.]
OCR for page 153
APPENDLY F
153
PRIORITY-SETTING QUESTIONNAIRE NO. 2
FORM USED BY KAISER PERMANENTE, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
WITH ILLUSTRATIVE RESPONSES
(check one)
Practice guidelines
Process guidelines
Interviewee's name
Interviewer's name
PRACTICE GUIDELINES
PRIORITY-SETTING FORM
(VERSION 3.4)
BACKGROUND
Kaiser Permanente, Southern California is currently screening about 5 percent of
healthy newborns for hearing loss. The recent MIH Consensus Guideline on
Hearing Screening in Infants and Children recommends that ALL newborns be
screened before 3 months of age. We anticipate that without farther advice
given to our physicians, the number of healthy newborns screened will increase
to about 50 percent. Based on our understanding of the literature, this change
in practice may not be justified. Therefore, we propose to develop a
comprehensive analysis of hearing screening in healthy newborns.
1. Disease condition or problem: Early detection of hearing impair~nentin
newborns
2. Patient group: Healthy newborns
3. What are the treatment options?
4. Option 1 to be assessed:
5. Option 2 to compare with Option 1:
6. Practitioner who will give Option
7. Setting for Option 1:
OCR for page 154
154
8. Type of activity
SETTING PRIORITIES FOR CLINICALPRACTICE GUIDELINES
Primary prevention and/or screening (detection)
O Diagnostic
~ Treatment
9. individual or group who could sponsor the guidelines:
10. Description of sponsor's priority for this guideline.
11. Number of members who are candidates for Option 1 each year:
12. Most important outcomes affected by Option 1 or the alternatives (benefits
and harms):
1. 1
13. Change in per-person probability of each health outcome with Option 1
versus Option 2 (note: a negative sign means Option 1 decreases the probability
of the outcome):
a. Estimated per-person probability of each outcome occurring under
Option 1:
b. Estimated probability of each outcome occurring under Option 2:
1 1 1 1
1 1
c. Change in probability (line 13a minus line lab) under Option 2:
r 1
1 1 1 1
OCR for page 155
APPENDIX F
14. Change in cost
a. Cost of providing Option 1:
b. Cost of providing Option 2:
c. Change in cost (line 14a minus 14b):
155
Note: if either option has a relatively large effect on long-term costs (large
relative to the effect on short-term costs), indicate this with a plus (+) or minus
(-3 sign in the box after the cost figure.
15. Probability that a formal analysis ofthe available evidence would show that
Option 1 is preferable to Option 2:
1 1
16. Describe the quality of the evidence in terms of the research designs (e.g.,
randomized controlled trials, randomized not controlled, clinical series, no direct
evidence).
17. Expected effect of a guideline on use of Option 1 versus Option 2:
a. Estimated proportion of candidates who would be treated with Option
1 if current trends continue (without a new guideline):
b. Estimated proportion of candidates who would be treated with Option
1 if a new guideline were developed recommending Option 1:
1 1
c. Estimated proportion of candidates who would be treated with Option
1 if a new guideline were developed recommending Option 2:
1 1
OCR for page 156
156
SEITING PRIORITIES FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES
d. Expected effect of a guideline on use of Option 1 versus. Option 2:
(~(line 15 multiplied by line 17b) + (1 minus line 15) multiplied by line 17c)]
minus line 17a)
l l
18. Number of analyst full-time equivalents needed to produce a guideline:
19. Expected effect of the guideline on outcomes:
(1) line 11 multiplied by line 13c multiplied by line 17d (Note: If the
value is positive, the outcome occurs for those lives. If the value is
negative, the outcome does not occur for those lives.)
a b c d e
1
2
(2) line 11 multiplied by line 14c multiplied by line 17d
20. How much does it cost to deal with each of the benefits or harms?
[ T I 1 1 1
21. Cost of the benefits arid banns of implementation per year (line 11
multiplied by line 14c multiplied by line 1 7d multiplied by line 20~. A negative
number is money saved.
1 1 1 1--- 1
22. Revised total cost:
(Dunn of item 19 plus the rows in item 20)
Representative terms from entire chapter:
estimated proportion
