Skip to main content
PMC home page
Quality in Health Care : QHC logoLink to Quality in Health Care : QHC
. 2001 Dec;10(4):238–244. doi: 10.1136/qhc.0100238..

Formal consensus: the development of a national clinical guideline

J Rycroft-Malone
PMCID: PMC1743460  PMID: 11743153

Abstract

Background—There is currently a political enthusiasm for the development and use of clinical guidelines despite, paradoxically, there being relatively few healthcare issues that have a sound research evidence base. As decisions have to be made even where there is an undetermined evidence base and that limiting recommendations to where evidence exists may reduce the scope of guidelines, thus limiting their value to practitioners, guideline developers have to rely on various different sources of evidence and adapt their methods accordingly. This paper outlines a method for guideline development which incorporates a consensus process devised to tackle the challenges of a variable research evidence base for the development of a national clinical guideline on risk assessment and prevention of pressure ulcers.

Method—To inform the recommendations of the guideline a formal consensus process based on a nominal group technique was used to incorporate three strands of evidence: research, clinical expertise, and patient experience.

Results—The recommendations for this guideline were derived directly from the statements agreed in the formal consensus process and from key evidence-based findings from the systematic reviews. The existing format of the statements that participants had rated allowed a straightforward revision to "active" recommendations, thus reducing further risk of subjectivity entering into the process.

Conclusions—The method outlined proved to be a practical and systematic way of integrating a number of different evidence sources. The resultant guideline is a mixture of research based and consensus based recommendations. Given the lack of available guidance on how to mix research with expert opinion and patient experiences, the method used for the development of this guideline has been outlined so that other guideline developers may use, adapt, and test it further.

Key Words: guidelines; guideline development; formal consensus process; nominal group technique; pressure ulcers

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (135.0 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brchan M. S., Hegge M. J., Stenvig T. E. A tiger by the tail: tackling barriers to differentiated practice. J Contin Educ Nurs. 1991 May-Jun;22(3):109–112. doi: 10.3928/0022-0124-19910501-08. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cullum N., Deeks J. J., Fletcher A. W., Sheldon T. A., Song F. Preventing and treating pressure sores. Qual Health Care. 1995 Dec;4(4):289–297. doi: 10.1136/qshc.4.4.289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Eccles M., Clapp Z., Grimshaw J., Adams P. C., Higgins B., Purves I., Russell I. Developing valid guidelines: methodological and procedural issues from the North of England Evidence Based Guideline Development Project. Qual Health Care. 1996 Mar;5(1):44–50. doi: 10.1136/qshc.5.1.44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fink A., Kosecoff J., Chassin M., Brook R. H. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health. 1984 Sep;74(9):979–983. doi: 10.2105/ajph.74.9.979. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Grimshaw J. M., Hutchinson A. Clinical practice guidelines--do they enhance value for money in health care? Br Med Bull. 1995 Oct;51(4):927–940. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bmb.a073006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Grimshaw J., Russell I. Achieving health gain through clinical guidelines. I: Developing scientifically valid guidelines. Qual Health Care. 1993 Dec;2(4):243–248. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2.4.243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hunter D. J., McKee C. M., Sanderson C. F., Black N. A. Appropriate indications for prostatectomy in the UK--results of a consensus panel. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1994 Feb;48(1):58–64. doi: 10.1136/jech.48.1.58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Jacoby I. Evidence and consensus. JAMA. 1988 May 27;259(20):3039–3039. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kitson A., Harvey G., McCormack B. Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Qual Health Care. 1998 Sep;7(3):149–158. doi: 10.1136/qshc.7.3.149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. McKee M., Black N. Junior doctors' work at night: what is done and how much is appropriate? J Public Health Med. 1993 Mar;15(1):16–24. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Nixon J., McElvenny D., Mason S., Brown J., Bond S. A sequential randomised controlled trial comparing a dry visco-elastic polymer pad and standard operating table mattress in the prevention of post-operative pressure sores. Int J Nurs Stud. 1998 Aug;35(4):193–203. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7489(98)00023-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Richardson F. M. Peer review of medical care. Med Care. 1972 Jan-Feb;10(1):29–39. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197201000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Sackett D. L., Rosenberg W. M., Gray J. A., Haynes R. B., Richardson W. S. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):71–72. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Scott E. A., Black N. Appropriateness of cholecystectomy in the United Kingdom--a consensus panel approach. Gut. 1991 Sep;32(9):1066–1070. doi: 10.1136/gut.32.9.1066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Scott E. M. The prevention of pressure ulcers in the operating department. J Wound Care. 2000 Jan;9(1):18–21. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2000.9.1.25940. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Shekelle P. G., Woolf S. H., Eccles M., Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines. BMJ. 1999 Feb 27;318(7183):593–596. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7183.593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Trickey H., Harvey I., Wilcock G., Sharp D. Formal consensus and consultation: a qualitative method for development of a guideline for dementia. Qual Health Care. 1998 Dec;7(4):192–199. doi: 10.1136/qshc.7.4.192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Vinokur A., Burnstein E., Sechrest L., Wortman P. M. Group decision making by experts: field study of panels evaluating medical technologies. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985 Jul;49(1):70–84. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.49.1.70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. West E., Newton J. Clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1997 Aug 9;315(7104):324–324. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7104.324. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Woolf S. H. Practice guidelines, a new reality in medicine. II. Methods of developing guidelines. Arch Intern Med. 1992 May;152(5):946–952. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Wortman P. M., Vinokur A., Sechrest L. Do consensus conferences work? A process evaluation of the NIH Consensus Development Program. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1988 Fall;13(3):469–498. doi: 10.1215/03616878-13-3-469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality in Health Care : QHC are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES