A Theoretical Framework and Competency-Based Approach to Training in Guideline Development
There is increasing requirement to develop guidelines using transparent, standardized, and rigorous methods. Consequently, a better understanding of the knowledge, skills, and expertise necessary for guideline development is needed. The aim of this manuscript is to describe a theoretical framework of knowledge and skills that are required for individuals to serve on a guideline panel in varying capacities.
Based on an iterative process and review of published manuscripts focused on guideline development, we identified competencies, subcompetencies, and milestones.
Using a competency-based approach to training and the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition, we identified three core competencies: (1) facilitate the development of guideline structure and setup, (2) make judgments about the quality or certainty of the evidence, and (3) transform evidence to a recommendation. Level 1 focuses on recognizing and acknowledging the importance of a specific skill or behavior. Levels 2 and 3 require learners to demonstrate progressive acquisition of knowledge and application to specific behaviors. Level 4 represents the individual who has acquired the requisite knowledge and can function independently, while level 5 represents the mastery/aspirational level.
We propose a preliminary competency-based education framework that will (1) help standardize the qualifications needed for individuals to serve on guideline panels in varying capacities or (2) help with curricula development for teaching and training of guideline panel members. This framework can also help enable guideline-producing organizations to identify guideline methodologists with the relevant and appropriate level of knowledge and skills to lead guidelines. Validation of the framework and further refinement of the competencies and milestones will be required before widespread adoption.
KEY WORDSclinical practice guideline methodologist competency-based training guideline panel
The authors acknowledge the participation and contributions of Ms. Madelin Seidler and Dr. Raj Shah in the development of this manuscript.
Conception and design: SS, PD, YFY, RLM, MHM, and RAM; development of the framework: SS, PD, YFY, RLM, MHM, and RAM; analysis and interpretation: SS, PD, YFY, RLM, MHM, and RAM; drafting of the article: SS; and critical revisions of the article for important intellectual content: PD, YFY, RLM, MHM, RAM, and HJS.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors do not have relevant financial conflicts of interest. All the authors are members of the GRADE Working Group and the U.S. GRADE Network. The authors provide educational activities and workshops on guideline development.
- 3.Institute of Medicine. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washinton, DC: National Academies Press; 2011; pp. 1-300.Google Scholar
- 9.Zhang Y, Coello PA, Guyatt GH, Yepes-Nunez JJ, Akl EA, Hazlewood G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 20. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-inconsistency, imprecision, and other domains. J Clin Epidemiol 2018.Google Scholar
- 10.Zhang Y, Alonso-Coello P, Guyatt GH, Yepes-Nunez JJ, Akl EA, Hazlewood G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences—risk of bias and indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol 2018.Google Scholar
- 11.Schunemann HJ, Cuello C, Akl EA, Mustafa RA, Meerpohl JJ, Thayer K, et al. GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2018.Google Scholar
- 34.Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education website. http://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/tabid/430/ProgramandInstitutionalAccreditation/NextAccreditationSystem/Milestones.aspx. Accessed January 2, 2019
- 35.Dreyfus H, Dreyfus SE. Five Steps From Novice to Expert: Mind Over Machine. New York: Free Press; 1988.Google Scholar