Transparency matters: Kaiser Permanente's National Guideline Program methodological processes.

INTRODUCTION: The practice-guideline process of collecting, critically appraising, and synthesizing available evidence, then developing expert panel recommendations based on appraised evidence, makes it possible to provide high-quality care for patients. Unwanted variability in the quality and rigor of evidence summaries and Clinical Practice Guidelines has been a long-standing challenge for clinicians seeking evidence-based guidance to support patient care decisions. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of stakeholders, with representation from all eight Kaiser Permanente Regions, is responsible for creating National Guidelines. Conducting high-quality systematic reviews and creating clinical guidelines are time-, labor-, and resource-intensive processes, which raises challenges for an organization striving to balance rigor with efficiency. For these reasons, the National Guideline Program elected to allow for the identification, assessment, and possible adoption of existing evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews using the ADAPTE; Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation; Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR); and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) frameworks. If no acceptable external guidelines are identified, the Guideline Development Team then systematically searches for relevant high-quality systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and original studies. Existing systematic reviews are assessed for quality using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (the AMSTAR systematic review checklist). STUDY APPRAISAL: Following the screening and selection process, the included studies (the "body of evidence") are critically appraised for quality, using the GRADE methodology, which focuses on four key factors that must be considered when assigning strength to a recommendation: balance between desirable and undesirable effects, quality of evidence, values and preferences, and cost. The evidence is then used to create preliminary clinical recommendations. The strength of these recommendations is graded to reflect the extent to which a guideline panel is confident that the desirable effects of an intervention outweigh undesirable effects (or vice versa) across the range of patients for whom the recommendation is intended. DISSEMINATION: The Care Management Institute disseminates all KP national guidelines to its eight Regions via postings on its Clinical Library Intranet site, a Web-based internal information resource.

Use and impact of an automated telephone outreach system for asthma in a managed care setting.

OBJECTIVE: To test the ability of an automated telephone outreach intervention to reduce acute healthcare utilization and improve quality of life among adult asthma patients in a large managed care organization. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Patients with persistent asthma were randomly assigned to telephone outreach (automated = 3389, live caller = 192) or usual care (n = 3367). Intervention participants received 3 outreach calls over a 10-month period. The intervention provided brief, supportive information and flagged individuals with poor asthma control for follow-up by a provider. A survey was mailed to 792 intervention participants and 236 providers after the intervention. Additional feedback was obtained as part of the final intervention contact. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat analysis found no significant differences between the intervention and usual-care groups for medication use, healthcare utilization, asthma control, or quality of life. Post hoc analyses found that, compared with the control group, individuals who actually participated in the intervention were significantly more likely to use inhaled steroids and to have had a routine medical visit for asthma during the follow-up period and less likely to use short-acting beta-agonists. They also reported higher satisfaction with their asthma care and better asthma-specific quality of life. Of surveyed providers, 59% stated the program helped them to clinically manage their asthma patients and 70% thought the program should be continued. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find improved health outcomes in the primary analyses. The intervention was well accepted by providers, however, and the individuals who participated in the calls appeared to have benefited from them. These findings suggest that further studies of automated telephone outreach interventions seem warranted.