A memorandum of understanding has facilitated guideline development involving collaborating groups.

OBJECTIVE: Collaboration between groups can facilitate the development of high-quality guidelines. While collaboration is often desirable, misunderstandings can occur. One method to minimize misunderstandings is the pre-specification of terms of engagement in a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This study considered when an MOU may be most helpful, and which key elements should be included. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An international panel of representatives from guideline groups was convened. A literature review to identify publications and other documents relevant to the establishment of MOUs between two or more guideline groups, supplemented by available source documents, was used to inform development of a draft MOU resource. This was iteratively refined until consensus was achieved. RESULTS: The level of detail in an MOU may vary based on institutional preferences and the particular collaboration. Elements within an MOU include those pertaining to: (1) scope and purpose; (2) leadership and team; (3) methods and commitment; (4) review and endorsement; and (5) publication and dissemination. CONCLUSION: Since groups may have different expectations regarding how a collaboration will unfold, an MOU may mitigate preventable misunderstandings. The result may be a higher likelihood of producing a guideline without disruption and delay.

ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsements and Adaptations.

ASCO engages in the endorsement and adaptation of clinical practice guidelines to recognize the high-quality work of other guideline-developing organizations, to avoid duplication of effort, and to offer harmonized recommendations across guideline development groups. ASCO develops guidelines in accordance with the principles of the National Academy of Medicine and Council of Medical Specialty Societies. Guidelines developed in a similar manner by other organizations make endorsement by ASCO more likely. If allowed by the partnering organization, ASCO may consider an adaptation of a guideline, building on the original guideline with further inquiry or modifications. Organizations seeking ASCO endorsement consideration are provided with ASCO's endorsement and adaptation procedures at the time of endorsement submission They can request either Endorsement or Endorsement or Adaptation. ASCO endorsement entails a formal review by an independent ASCO Expert Panel, and, if modifications to the recommendations are made, depending upon the original endorsement request, guidelines will be adapted or discontinued, rather than endorsed. The process begins with approval from ASCO's Clinical Practice Guideline Committee (CPGC) leadership to proceed with endorsement development. An ASCO Expert Panel of approximately 10 multidisciplinary content experts, patient representatives, community oncologists, and relevant health providers is formed to develop an ASCO endorsement. ASCO's Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines and procedures apply to all ASCO expert panels. The CPGC reviews and approves all ASCO guideline products on behalf of ASCO. The endorsement process described in this report is designed to preserve a high-quality and resource-efficient approach for potential ASCO endorsement or adaptation of guidelines developed by other health professional organizations, while maintaining the objectivity, quality, and high standards reflective of ASCO's guiding principles.

Innovations in American Society of Clinical Oncology Practice Guideline Development.

Since the beginning of its guidelines program in 1993, ASCO has continually sought ways to produce a greater number of guidelines while maintaining its commitment to using the rigorous development methods that minimize the biases that threaten the validity of practice recommendations. ASCO is implementing a range of guideline development and implementation innovations. In this article, we describe innovations that are designed to (1) integrate consideration of multiple chronic conditions into practice guidelines; (2) keep more of its guidelines current by applying evolving signals or (more) rapid, for-cause updating approaches; (3) increase the number of high-quality guidelines available to its membership through endorsement and adaptation of other groups' products; (4) improve coverage of its members' guideline needs through a new topic nomination process; and (5) enhance dissemination and promote implementation of ASCO guidelines in the oncology practice community through a network of volunteer ambassadors. We close with a summary of ASCO's plans to facilitate the integration of data from its rapid learning system, CancerLinQ, into ASCO guidelines and to develop tactics through which guideline recommendations can be embedded in clinicians' workflow in digital form. We highlight the challenges inherent in reconciling the need to provide clinicians with more interactive, point-of-care guidance with ASCO's abiding commitment to methodologic rigor in guideline development.

American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines: opportunities and challenges.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) published its first clinical practice guideline, which focused on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors, in 1994. Since then, ASCO has published 24 additional guidelines or technology assessments on a range of topics and is developing 11 additional guidelines. Guidelines are among ASCO's most valued products, according to membership surveys and data from the JCO.org Web site. However, the same data from ASCO members have highlighted a number of limitations to the guideline program. These relate to the timelines of guideline updates, difficulties locating guidelines and related products, and challenges to implementing ASCO guidelines in everyday clinical practice. This article outlines the concrete steps that the ASCO Health Services Committee (HSC) is taking to address these limitations, including the institution of a more aggressive guideline updating schedule, a transition from narrative to systematic literature reviews to support the practice recommendations, a new Board of Directors-approved policy to permit endorsement of other groups' guidelines, and a robust Clinical Tools and Resources program that offers a range of guideline dissemination and implementation aids. Additional work is underway to establish stronger and deeper collaborations with practicing oncologists to expand their role in the review, field testing, and implementation of guideline clinical tools and resources. Finally, the HSC is discussing evaluation of the guidelines program to maximize the impact of ASCO clinical practice guidelines on clinical decision making and, ultimately, the quality of cancer care.