Table 1

Key aspects of the STANDING Collaboration methodology, designed to mitigate issues with current CPG development

CPG development issue STANDING Collaboration methodology and rationale
Large numbers of repositories and guidelines2 6 Single approach negates the need for, and replaces aggregated findings from, a large number of repositories and guidelines
Duplication and overlap2
Different recommendations for care practices2 6 Methodology will produce a single set of nationally agreed evidence-based clinical indicators, representative of ‘appropriate care’ for a range of common medical conditions, reflecting consensus recommendations for care practices
Lack of currency2 6 Methodological vehicle (interactive, live and online wiki-based platform) will facilitate ongoing review and ease of updating
Inconsistent structure and content2 Uniform methodological approach and format will ensure consistent structure and content
Hard-to-use voluminous documents2 Methodological vehicle (live and online wiki-based platform) and consistent organisation of indicators according to phases of care will facilitate ease of access and use
Hard-to-measure recommendations2 Uniform methodological approach will ensure consistent structure and content for indicators, which will be formatted to ensure ‘measurable components of the standard, with explicit criteria for inclusion, exclusion, time frame and setting’2
Management of conflicts of interest2 6 9 36 49 Research methodology requires participants to declare any conflicts of interest, and has a defined management strategy for these
The source and provenance of each standard, indicator and suggestion will be logged and can be viewed
Inclusive, catering for all target audiences19 23 This method allows for all healthcare professional types and patients
or consumers to register and review indicators
Lacking details on how evidence was sourced, interpreted and managed to formulate recommendations8 All reviewers’ comments and recommendations will be logged, classified and presented in subsequent rounds according to whether and why they have been incorporated into the next iteration
This allows tracking of the evolution of the standards and indicators from the original recommendations on which they were based to their final iteration, as well as the nature and influence of review feedback in shaping the standard
  • CPG, clinical practice guideline.