Participation Requirements for a Patient Representative.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Evidence-based Dental Practice Developing guidelines or clinical recommendations Slide #1 This lecture follows the previous online lecture on evidence.
Advertisements

ENTITIES FOR A UN SYSTEM EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 17th MEETING OF SENIOR FELLOWSHIP OFFICERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM AND HOST COUNTRY AGENCIES BY DAVIDE.
Integrating the NASP Practice Model Into Presentations: Resource Slides Referencing the NASP Practice Model in professional development presentations helps.
Participation Requirements for a Guideline Panel Member.
Protocol Development.
Adult HIV Outpatient PBR Tariff Development National Reference Group Meeting 21/05/10.
Participation Requirements for a Guideline Panel Co-Chair.
+ Multiple Viewpoints, One Voice: Writing and Editing a Comprehensive Self- Study Leanne Owen, Ph.D. Holy Family University.
International Telecommunication Union D3 Methodology Objectives for this meeting from Chairman of WG-A Yoh Somemura (NTT, Japan) Vice Chairman of FG on.
Standard 6: Clinical Handover
American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) Health and Science Policy Committee Orientation Program Part #1 General Overview and Structure.
Strengthening the Medical Device Clinical Trial Enterprise
Participation Requirements for a Guideline Panel PGIN Representative.
Improving Learning, Persistence, and Transparency by Writing for the NASPA Journal Dr. Cary Anderson, Editor, NASPA Journal Kiersten Feeney, Editorial.
Bree Collaborative Cardiology Report: Appropriateness of Percutaneous Cardiac Interventions (PCI) Bree Collaborative Meeting November 30, 2012.
CADTH Therapeutic Reviews
The ICH E5 Question and Answer Document Status and Content Robert T. O’Neill, Ph.D. Director, Office of Biostatistics, CDER, FDA Presented at the 4th Kitasato-Harvard.
Systematic Reviews and the American Academy of Pediatrics Virginia A. Moyer, MD, MPH Professor of Pediatrics Baylor College of Medicine.
Opportunities for RAC Participation. Three Part discussion General presentation; Example of oil and gas decision making; and Panel Discussion of RAC involvement.
Clinical Practice Guidelines
From Evidence to EMS Practice: Building the National Model Eddy Lang, MD, CFPC (EM), CSPQ SMBD-Jewish General Hospital, McGill University Montreal, Canada.
Conducting the IT Audit
Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines
2009 NWCCU Annual Meeting Overview of the Revised Accreditation Standards and New Oversight Process Ronald L. Baker Executive Vice President and Director,
Development of Clinical Practice Guidelines for the NHS Dr Jacqueline Dutchak, Director National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care 16 January 2004.
Presenter-Dr. L.Karthiyayini Moderator- Dr. Abhishek Raut
Systematic Reviews.
XXX_DECRIPT_MON00/1 Quality and impact of Social Science and Operations Research by the Special Programme in Human Reproduction Department of Reproductive.
August 7, Market Participant Survey Action Plan Dale Goodman Director, Market Services.
Evidence-Based Public Health Nancy Allee, MLS, MPH University of Michigan November 6, 2004.
1 HRSA Division of Independent Review The Review Process Regional AIDS Education and Training Centers HRSA Toni Thomas, MPA Lead Review Administrator.
Organization and guideline development April 2010 ACCC The Netherlands.
Update: Grocery Refrigeration Provisional Standard Protocol for Site Specific Savings RTF Meeting June 28,
Finding Relevant Evidence
Plymouth Health Community NICE Guidance Implementation Group Workshop Two: Debriding agents and specialist wound care clinics. Pressure ulcer risk assessment.
Results The final report was presented to NICE and published by NICE and WHO. See
Deciding how much confidence to place in a systematic review What do we mean by confidence in a systematic review and in an estimate of effect? How should.
Clinical Assessment Program for Residencies Jim Czarnecki, D.O.
BMH CLINICAL GUIDELINES IN EUROPE. OUTLINE Background to the project Objectives The AGREE Instrument: validation process and results Outcomes.
PATIENT-CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH INSTITUTE PCORI Board of Governors Meeting Washington, DC September 24, 2012 Anne Beal, MD, MPH, Chief Operating Officer.
Evidence Based Practice RCS /9/05. Definitions  Rosenthal and Donald (1996) defined evidence-based medicine as a process of turning clinical problems.
Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Using the AGREE¹ Instrument CAN-IMPLEMENT Toolkit Version 1.0 April 2010 Modified from:
Section 4.9 Review Report Request for MAC Approval December 1, 2015.
Is the conscientious explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decision about the care of the individual patient (Dr. David Sackett)
Onsite Quarterly Meeting SIPP PIPs June 13, 2012 Presenter: Christy Hormann, LMSW, CPHQ Project Leader-PIP Team.
Monitoring Afghanistan, 2015 Food Security and Agriculture Working Group – 9 December 2015.
Guidelines Recommandations. Role Ideal mediator for bridging between research findings and actual clinical practice Ideal tool for professionals, managers,
ICAJ/PAB - Improving Compliance with International Standards on Auditing Planning an audit of financial statements 19 July 2014.
Methodological Issues in Implantable Medical Device(IMDs) Studies Abdallah ABOUIHIA Senior Statistician, Medtronic.
Training for organisations participating in Peer Review of Paediatric Diabetes.
Evidence-Based Mental Health PSYC 377. Structure of the Presentation 1. Describe EBP issues 2. Categorize EBP issues 3. Assess the quality of ‘evidence’
Quality Metrics of Performance of Research Ethics Committees Cristina E. Torres, PhD FERCAP Coordinator.
1 IUCN GL GLPA Standard Framework Matthew Wenban-Smith (Technical Support to Green List PA Steering Group) 25 th February 2014.
The International Society for Quality in Health Care (ISQua) – Guidelines.
AUDIT STAFF TRAINING WORKSHOP 13 TH – 14 TH NOVEMBER 2014, HILTON HOTEL NAIROBI AUDIT PLANNING 1.
BLM Decision Making Process
EIA approval process, Management plan and Monitoring
Patient Involvement in the HTA Decision Making Process
FDA’s IDE Decisions and Communications
MUHC Innovation Model.
Automation of systematic reviews: the reviewer’s viewpoint
Guideline Development
AXIS critical Appraisal of cross sectional Studies
Systematic Review, Synthesis, & Clinical Practice Guidelines
Update on the Developments in Government Auditing Standards
IAASB-IESBA Coordination
Clinical Audit Summary Guide
Update on the Developments in Government Auditing Standards
ASCO/NCODA Oral Chemotherapy Dispensing Standards Initiative
From the Evidence Analysis to the Creation of Evidence Based Guidelines 1.
Presentation transcript:

Participation Requirements for a Patient Representative

Background These slides are intended to clarify the guideline development process and illustrate expectations of a Patient Representative for participation in an ASCO guideline panel. Guideline development can be time-consuming, but the end- products are especially valued by members. We recognize that participation in development in an ASCO guideline involves significant commitment of time and energy. We hope that the material that follows provides some clarification regarding the expectations and scope of the undertaking.

ASCO’s Guidance Products Clinical Practice Guideline: Addresses specific clinical situations (disease- oriented) or use of approved medical products, procedures, or tests (modality-oriented). Systematic reviews serve as the evidentiary basis for drafting principles of clinical care. Interpretation and extrapolation of evidence are often necessary. Consensus Guideline: A systematic review is conducted. If evidence identified is limited, inconsistent, indirect, or of poor quality, then the formal consensus-based methodology may be considered. While the decision to incorporate consensus recommendation(s) may vary, the common thread is lack of sufficient evidence. ASCO utilizes a modified Delphi process for creating consensus guideline recommendations. Additional information on the methodology can be found on the ASCO Guidelines Wiki Guideline Development page.ASCO Guidelines Wiki Guideline Development page

ASCO’s Guidance Products Guideline Endorsement: ASCO can be approached by other organizations to endorse a guideline or ASCO can initiate the process. The topic should be relevant and appropriate to the mission and interests of ASCO. Endorsing other organizations’ guidelines decreases duplication of effort and allows ASCO to expand the library of recommendations available to members. Guideline Adaptation: ASCO follows a process for adapting guidelines from other organizations. Guideline recommendations can be adapted from one or multiple relevant guidelines with the intent of producing a guideline relevant to the ASCO membership. Adapting other organizations’ guidelines decreases duplication of efforts and allows ASCO to expand the library of recommendations available to members. Provisional Clinical Opinion (PCO): is intended to offer timely clinical direction to the ASCO membership following the publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. The PCO may serve in some cases as interim direction to the membership pending the development or updating of an ASCO clinical practice guideline. The PCO enables ASCO to provide a rapid response to key data from clinical cancer research. Additional information on the methodology can be found on the ASCO Guidelines Wiki Guideline Development page.ASCO Guidelines Wiki Guideline Development page

Steps in Creating an ASCO Guideline 1.Systematic review conducted by ASCO Staff (searches, abstract review, full text review, data extraction, evidence table development) 2.Panel meets, reviews evidence, develops recommendations 3.Draft manuscript assembled by the Co-Chairs or Steering Committee and ASCO Staff Co-chairs 4.Panel reviews and approves the first draft 5.Draft submitted for JCO review and sent concurrently for external review 6.Reviews incorporated into revised draft 7.Panel reviews and approves revised draft 8.Draft submitted to CPGC for review and approval 9.Panel revises draft based on CPGC review 10.Panel reviews and approves final draft. 11.Draft returned to CPGC reviewers for review and approval (if required) 12.Draft resubmitted to JCO.

Guideline Steps

Appraising the Evidence and Rating the Evidence and Recommendations Quality appraisal. It is proposed that evidence informing guideline recommendations be formally appraised to evaluate the reliability and validity of the evidence. These assessments of quality will be made for individual sources of evidence (i.e., individual trials, systematic reviews, etc.) using pre-specified criteria, which are based primarily on elements of quality related to study design, methodology, and risk of bias. A sample of the study quality appraisal checklist developed/adapted for randomized controlled trials is provided in Appendix 3. Strength of evidence. The quality of the total body of evidence used to inform a given recommendation will be assessed to evaluate its validity, reliability, and consistency. This assessment will consider the individual study quality ratings, the overall risk of bias, and the overall validity and reliability of the total body of evidence. The summary rating will be an indication of the Panel’s confidence in the available evidence. Strength of recommendations. The Panel provides a rating of the strength of each recommendation. This assessment is primarily based on the strength of the available evidence for each recommendation and it is an indication of the Panel’s confidence in its guidance or recommendation. However, where evidence is lacking, it also affords panels the opportunity to comment on the strength of their conviction and uniformity of their agreement that the recommendation represents the best possible current guidance. Additional information on can be found on the ASCO Guidelines Wiki Guideline Development page.ASCO Guidelines Wiki Guideline Development page

General Responsibilities of a Patient Representative Present perspective of people affected by a particular cancer or treatment-related issue (e.g. febrile neutropenia) being addressed in the guideline. Assist in drafting the Clinician-Patient Communications section of the guideline Communicate actively with other panel members and ASCO staff

Additional Responsibilities Patient Representatives may be asked to provide feedback or input into the development of Clinical Tools and Resources (CT&Rs), specifically, patient-related tools like Decision Aids or Discussion Guides. Patient Representatives may be asked input on materials suitable for use with patients and for publication on the cancer.net website.

Thank you for participating in the guideline development process. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact