Back to Journals » Risk Management and Healthcare Policy » Volume 14

Improving the Applicability and Feasibility of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Primary Care: Recommendations for Guideline Development and Implementation

Authors Han L, Zeng L, Duan Y, Chen K, Yu J, Li H, Yi Q, Li Y, Zhang L

Received 17 March 2021

Accepted for publication 5 August 2021

Published 22 August 2021 Volume 2021:14 Pages 3473—3482

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S311254

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Jongwha Chang



Lu Han,1,2 Linan Zeng,1,2 Yanjun Duan,3 Kexin Chen,4 Jiajie Yu,5 Honghao Li,6 Qiusha Yi,1,2 Youping Li,5 Lingli Zhang1,2

1Department of Pharmacy/Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China; 2Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children (Sichuan University), Ministry of Education, Chengdu, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China; 3College of Pharmacy, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Chengdu, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China; 4West China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China; 5Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Centre/Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China; 6West China Hospital Institute of Management, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China

Correspondence: Lingli Zhang
Department of Pharmacy/Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 20 Section Three, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China
Tel +86 28-85503205
Email [email protected]

Objective: To give recommendations for the development of primary care clinical practice guideline (CPG) to improve applicability and feasibility of primary care CPGs in China.
Design: A two-round Delphi survey.
Methods: A two-round Delphi survey including guideline development methodologists and clinical practitioners from six countries was conducted. In round one, participants were asked to raise special considerations for the development of primary care CPGs through open-ended questions. In round two, participants were asked to rate the level of agreement on each recommendation item generated by round one and to raise additional recommendations. Opinions from participants were reviewed by thematic analysis. Integrated results from the Delphi survey were validated by participants.
Results: The necessity of developing recommendations for the development of primary care CPGs were consistently recognized by participants. The main recommendations of guideline development were generated as follows: (1) considering the context of primary care institutions and the applicability of existing guidelines for primary care in planning guideline; (2) involving primary care practitioners and patients in guideline groups; (3) considering the variation of health-care resources between primary care settings when developing recommendations; (4) presenting the difference of recommendations between primary care CPG and general CPG; (5) implementing more active education and training; and (6) considering the changing of primary care medical resource when updating guideline.
Conclusion: In this study, we present recommendations to inform the development of clinical practice guidelines in primary care settings. Next steps will include merging these recommendations with general guideline development methods to inform the development of guidelines for primary care.

Keywords: primary care, clinical practice guideline, guideline development

Plain Language Summary

  • We provide recommendations on nine phases of guideline development for primary care through a Delphi survey.
  • The two-round Delphi survey based on a systematic search of handbooks for guideline development allowed us to seek opinions and perspectives from stakeholders based on existing methods for guideline development.
  • The opinions from the Delphi survey were reviewed in parallel by members from the working group, and the consistency of each member’s item reduction was evaluated by an expert member from working group.
  • Although we tried to cover a wide geographical area by inviting experts from six countries, the applicability of the recommendations may still have limitations when applied worldwide.

Introduction

A good primary health-care system should occupy a central role in health care and take on a gate-keeping role to reduce cost burden arising from uncontrolled and inappropriate use of expensive hospital services.1 However, many countries including China are faced with serious shortage of well-trained primary care practitioners and have a deeply entrenched habit of seeking help from tertiary hospitals due to lack of public confidence in the primary health-care system.2,3

Appropriate clinical practice guidelines can assist practitioners and patient decisions on adequate health care for specific clinical circumstances.4 Our previous survey, however, revealed a huge gap between the needs and the availability of appropriate clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for primary care practitioners in China.5 Similar result was found in previous study from other country, current CPGs did not meet the clinical needs in primary care.6

Although guidelines on guideline development and implementation provide straightforward pathways and methods, the applicability and feasibility of CPGs for primary care are still problematic.16–18 An assessment of guidelines on hepatitis B at primary care level found that none of the included guidelines met all criteria of appropriateness for remote primary health-care settings, indicating that guidelines need to recognize the difficulties of rural and remote practice, and hence to present practical alternatives to urban-centred recommendations.19 Even though guidelines are appropriate for primary care, the dissemination and implementation still need to be improved.7 A cross-sectional study from Sweden showed that 42% of clinicians in primary care were unfamiliar with the content of evidence-based guidelines,20 and guideline adherence in primary care settings was poor.21–23

This study aims to identify specificities and further recommendations to improve the applicability, feasibility and implementation of CPGs in primary care in China by consultation with guideline development methodologists and clinical practitioners based on systematic review of previous guidelines of guideline development.

Methods

We used a web-based Delphi survey and a validation check to achieve formal group consensus, maximizing dialogue through structured feedback. To facilitate the survey, a working group including methodologists, clinicians and pharmacists was established in January 2016. As the first step, the working group conducted a comprehensive search of previous guidelines and handbooks of guideline development and implementations to identify common flows and methods in guideline development and implementation.8 Then, the working group held two face-to-face meetings to raise potential specialties in primary care CPG development and implementation, and formed a questionnaire for the Delphi survey (Figure 1). The questionnaire included 41 open-ended questions on steps of guideline development and implementation including planning guideline, setting up guideline group, declaration and management of interests, formulating questions, choosing outcomes, evidence retrieval, evidence assessment, developing recommendations, producing and publishing guideline, implementation and evaluation, and updating guidelines.

Figure 1 Overview of consultation to develop process recommendations and guiding principles for primary care CPG development.

As the second step, a two-round Delphi survey of guideline development methodologists and clinical practitioners was conducted.9,10 For selection of the sample, the working group generated a list of candidates for Delphi survey through the corresponding author information of previous guidelines and handbooks of guideline development and implementations,8 and inquired whether the authors’ were willing to participate by email. A maximum variation sampling approach was used with the balance of expert region and professional background and final sample size was based on reaching data saturation. In the first-round Delphi survey, participants were asked firstly to rate the applicability of previous guidelines, as well as the necessity of developing recommendations for primary care CPGs by a five-level Likert scale (1, completely inapplicable/unnecessary, to 5, completely applicable/necessary). Then, participants were asked to raise special considerations and recommendations for primary care CPGs following the questionnaire. Opinions from participants were reviewed in parallel by two members of the working group (LNZ and YJD) by steps as follows: (1) separating compound responses into individual items; (2) line-by-line coding each item and summarizing into concise items; and (3) categorizing concise items by steps of guideline development and implementation. An expert in the working group (LLZ) then evaluated the consensus of each member’s item reduction and led a discussion to achieve consensus in case of discrepancies.

In the second-round Delphi survey, the participants were asked to rate the level of agreement on each recommendation generated by the first-round survey using a five-level Likert scale (1, strongly disagree, to 5, strongly agree). Participants were encouraged to explain on disagreement or to raise additional recommendations. The working group only included items with an average score of ≥4. Mirroring the process in the first-round, explanations and additional recommendations were summarized and categorized.

In the third phase, the working group invited the participants to validate the results by email. Change was allowed based on the feedback from the participants and discussion within the working group.

Results

A total of 16 experts from six countries participated the first-round Delphi survey. One of them did not continue to the second-round due to schedule conflict. Another two experts joined the second-round Delphi (Appendix 1).

Attitude Towards “The Applicability of Previous Guidelines of Guideline Development for Primary Care CPGs”

Fifteen of the 16 experts rated the applicability of previous guidelines of guideline development and the necessity of developing recommendations for primary care CPGs. The average scores (3.1 and 3.5, respectively) revealed fundamental applicability of previous guidelines, and necessity of developing recommendations to improve the feasibility and applicability of primary care CPGs and CPGs which aim to be implemented in primary care.

Planning Flow for Developing Primary Care CPGs

Before generating a project of developing primary care CPGs, the flow for considering whether to adopt previous guideline or to de novo develop guideline for primary care is summarized in Figure 2. For adaptation of guidelines, experts recommended to use previous approaches such as ADAPTE.11,12 The following recommendations focused on the de novo development of primary care CPGs and of CPGs which aim to be implemented in primary care (Table 1).

Table 1 Recommendations for the de novo Development of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) in Primary Care

Figure 2 Recommendations for the planning flow of developing primary care clinical practice guidelines.

Planning Guideline

The situations and needs in primary care are usually ignored at the very beginning of guideline development. Understanding situations in primary care through literature or health statistics review, and multidisciplinary discussion is crucial at the planning step. Primary care health practitioners as the main information providers should be involved in the multidisciplinary discussion. The following information in primary care should be gathered: organizational context (eg, organizational structure, service procedure, health resource, payment for medical service of primary care institutions) and disease distribution (eg, prevalence of disease, characteristics of patients). Moreover, the evidence-practice gaps (eg, the availability of guidance, perceived needs for evidence-informed guidelines) should be known to highlight planning and scoping guidelines.

Setting Up Guideline Group

Primary care practitioners are not often involved in guideline development, even in guidelines for primary care. We recommend that primary care practitioners should be included in steering group, development group and external review group. For primary care CPGs, membership of primary care practitioners should be 20% or higher. Alternatively, their opinions should be sought by other means.

Formulating Questions and Choosing Outcomes

For guidelines whose target users include primary care practitioners, the applicability and feasibility of interventions for primary care should be considered as a question when formulating questions. For guidelines developed specially for primary care, the known mismatches between evidence and practice, or variation of practice in primary care should be considered as a question.

Since the orientation of primary care is usually different from that of the tertiary hospitals, the health system outcomes from the aspect of primary care should be considered in addition to patient outcomes (health outcomes).

Evidence Assessment

For evaluation of effectiveness and safety, magnitude of effect should be the same for primary care guidelines and general guidelines. Difference might lie in cost or cost-effectiveness, burdens and resource requirement. However, these evaluations from the perspective of primary care are usually ignored, causing inapplicability of guidelines in primary care. Given the evidence of burdens, resource requirement and cost in primary care, recommendations might change from “for” to “against” (or opposite) due to the change of net benefit.

We recommend evaluation of issues which might be different in primary care from the perspective of primary care, and to consider the difference in making recommendations.

Developing Recommendations

For guidelines whose target users include primary care practitioners, contextualized recommendation could be considered, hence making different recommendations for primary care and other levels of health care is reasonable. The difference in recommendations should be presented in primary care guidelines.

Producing and Publishing Guidelines

For writing guideline, the language of primary care guidelines should be plain and clear to be easily understood by primary care practitioners. We recommend guidelines which aim to be implemented in primary care to have a summary version including major recommendations, which are better accepted in primary care.

For external reviewer, primary care practitioners should be included in the external review process. And for guidelines developed specially for primary care, both primary care practitioners and developers of general guidelines on the same topic should be included in the external review process.

For dissemination, lack of access to guidelines is a major barrier for their implementation. Therefore, we recommend making guidelines free access, and disseminated not only by biomedical literature database, but also by other localized access which are available for primary care practitioners.

Implementation and Evaluation of Guideline

Being unaware of guidelines is one of the major barriers for implementation of guidelines in primary care. It is easier for practitioners in tertiary hospitals to be aware of new or updated guidelines through academic conferences, literature, clinical decision support system (eg, Uptodate), or colleagues. But practitioners in primary care have limited access to these sources. Therefore, we recommend making the primary care practitioners aware of guidelines first through local and individual access, for example, information system of primary care institutions, emails or short messages. Second, organizing small conferences or workshops in primary care institutions to facilitate the participation of primary care practitioners. Then, making guidelines available at the time of decision-making should be considered. This is usually done by computerized decision support in tertiary hospitals. For primary care, dissemination of a hard copy of the guidelines is an alternative approach to remind practitioners when making decisions.

Discussion

Summary of Findings

Developing clinical practice guidelines for primary care settings is an extensive and iterative process that involves several phases of input and consultations.13–15 This study aims to establish recommendations for the development of CPGs for primary care. Using Delphi survey methodology allowed us to seek opinions and perspectives from stakeholders based on existing methods for guideline development. In our study, recommendations on nine phases of guideline development for primary care were generated. These recommendations refer to specific issues rather than comprehensive procedures of the development of primary care guidelines.

Findings of Similar Studies

One of the barriers in the development of CPGs for primary care is the gap between published evidence and information needed for guideline development. Models developed by Habbema et al tried to bridge the gaps by projecting outcomes for the conditions for which the guideline is intended.24 They used colorectal and breast cancer screening as examples to show the utility of models. Moreover, resource limitation is another common situation in the development of CPG for primary care. Alper et al developed the RAPADAPTE method which extended “guideline adaptation” to “evidence source adaptation” and shortened the time of identifying, appraising, and synthesizing evidence in the de novo development of guideline.25 By using the RAPADAPTE method, they developed a guideline with 90 recommendations within six months.26 Further, implementation plans that address the concerns and complexities of everyday practice are essential for the promotion of primary care CPGs. The PARiHS framework developed by McKillop et al could help encompass the complex nature of evidence implementation by identifying positive and negative indicators of supports and inhibitors in everyday clinical practice.27–29

Limitation

The main limitation of our study lies in the variation of primary care settings between different countries. Participants involved in the Delphi survey may only consider the primary care special issues based on the situations in their own countries. Actually, this is likely the main reason that the coefficient of variation on each recommendation is not all small in the second-round Delphi survey. For remedy the limitation, we introduced primary care situation in China at the beginning of survey, and invited the participants to validate the results by email in the third phase to reduce the difference in results due to difference in understanding.

We focus on CPG development process, including CPG development and implementation. The reasons for lack of acceptance and guideline implementation are not our main aim. Patients were not included because they found it difficult to comment on CPG development process, but patients’ opinions need to be taken into account when developing recommendations for future CPGs in primary care.

Conclusions

In this study we present recommendations to inform the development of clinical practice guidelines in primary care. Next steps will include merging these recommendations with general guideline development methods to inform the development of guidelines for primary care.

Data Sharing Statement

Questionnaires of the two-round Delphi survey and participant quotations to illustrate the recommendations from the two-round Delphi survey are available in Appendixes 2 and 3.

Ethics Approval

This study was approved by the Ethic Committee of West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University. The opinions of participants were analyzed and presented with their consent.

Acknowledgments

We thank the persons who responded to the Delphi survey for their thoughtful comments. We particularly wish to thank Dr Tari Turner from School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University for her help in revising the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Science Foundation for Young Scholars of China (No. 71503177) and the Medical Administration and Service Center of National Health and Family Planning Commission (2018–2019), which had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, preparation of the manuscript, or decision to publish the manuscript.

Disclosure

The authors are not aware of any relationships or support which might be perceived as a conflict of interest and report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

1. Lancet T. China must not neglect reform of primary care. Lancet. 2005;365:1362. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66346-5

2. Liu Q, Wang B, Kong YY, et al. China’s primary health-care reform. Lancet. 2011;377:2064–2066. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60167-0

3. National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Health, The State Commission Office for Public Sector Reform, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security. A plan for the establishment of a general practitioner led primary-care. Available from: http://www.nbws.gov.cn/webmagic/eWebEditor/uploadfile/20100514095157367.pdf. Accessed August 11, 2021.

4. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press; 2001.

5. Zeng LN, Li YP, Zhang LL, et al. Guideline use behaviours and needs of primary care practitioners in China: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e015379. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015379

6. Langley C, Faulkner A, Watkins C, et al. Use of guidelines in primary care–practitioners’ perspectives. Fam Pract. 1998;15:105–111. doi:10.1093/fampra/15.2.105

7. Guthrie B, Payne K, Alderson P, et al. Adapting clinical guidelines to take account of multimorbidity. BMJ. 2012;345(Oct 4):e6341. doi:10.1136/bmj.e6341

8. Zeng LN, Li YP, Zhang LL, et al. Evidence-based evaluation on guidelines for guideline development worldwide. Chin J Evid Based Med. 2016;11:1322–1330.

9. Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:i–iv, 1–88.

10. Sinha IP, Smyth RL, Williamson PR. Using the delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1000393. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000393

11. ADAPTE Collaboration. Guideline Adaptation: A Resource Toolkit. Version 2.0. Perthshire, Écosse: Guidelines International Network; 2009.

12. Harrison M, van den Hoek J. CAN-IMPLEMENT: A Guideline Adaptation and Implementation Planning Resource. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Queen’s University School of Nursing and Canadian Partnership Against Cancer; 2012.

13. Carnett WG. Clinical practice guidelines: a tool to improve care. Qual Manag Health Care. 1999;8:13–21. doi:10.1097/00019514-199908010-00003

14. Robin G, Michelle M, Dianne MW, et al. Institute of Medicine Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines, Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press; 2011.

15. Graham ID, Harrison MB, Brouwers M, et al. Facilitating the use of evidence in practice: evaluating and adapting clinical practice guidelines for local use by health care organizations. J Obstetr Gynecol Neonat Nurs. 2002;31:599–611. doi:10.1111/j.1552-6909.2002.tb00086.x

16. Shin JJ. Involving stakeholders in the development of clinical practice guidelines. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;150:907–909. doi:10.1177/0194599814525913

17. den Breejen EME, Hermens RPMG, Galama WH, et al. Added value of involving patients in the first step of multidisciplinary guideline development: a qualitative interview study among infertile patients. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016;28:299–305. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzw020

18. van Tulder MW, Tuut M, Pennick V, et al. Quality of primary care guidelines for acute low back pain. Nutr Health. 2004;29:E357–E362.

19. Cross V, Larkins S. Management of chronic Hepatitis B infection in the remote primary health care setting: the search for a suitable guideline. Aust J Rural Health. 2011;19:95. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1584.2011.01190.x

20. Overmeer T, Linton SJ, Holmquist L, et al. Do evidence-based guidelines have an impact in primary care? A cross-sectional study of Swedish physicians and physiotherapists. Spine. 2005;30:146–151. doi:10.1097/00007632-200501010-00024

21. Yawn BP, Rank MA, Cabana MD, et al. Adherence to asthma guidelines in children, tweens, and adults in primary care settings: a practice-based network assessment: a practice-based network assessment. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91:411–421. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.01.010

22. Khalid L, Liebschutz JM, Xuan ZM, et al. Adherence to prescription opioid monitoring guidelines among residents and attending physicians in the primary care setting. Pain Med. 2015;16:480–487. doi:10.1111/pme.12602

23. Corson K, Doak MN, Denneson L, et al. Primary care clinician adherence to guidelines for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain: results from the study of the effectiveness of a collaborative approach to pain. Pain Med. 2011;12:1490–1501. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01231.x

24. Habbema JDF, Wilt TJ, Etzioni R, et al. Models in the development of clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161:812–818. doi:10.7326/M14-0845

25. Alper BS, Tristan M, Ramirez-Morera A, et al. RAPADAPTE for rapid guideline development: high-quality clinical guidelines can be rapidly developed with limited resources. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016;28:268–274. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzw044

26. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Treatment of Primary Breast Cancer. SIGN Publication No. 134. Edinburgh: SIGN; 2013.

27. Kitson AL, Rycroft-Malone J, Harvey G, et al. Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges. (Debate)(Report). Implement Sci. 2008;3:1. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-1

28. Rycroft-Malone J. The PARIHS framework–a framework for guiding the implementation of evidence-based practice. (Using the Best Evidence to Change Practice). J Nurs Care Qual. 2004;19:297. doi:10.1097/00001786-200410000-00002

29. McKillop A, Crisp J, Walsh K. Barriers and enablers to implementation of a New Zealand-wide guideline for assessment and management of cardiovascular risk in primary health care: a template analysis. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2012;9:159–171. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2011.00233.x

Creative Commons License © 2021 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.