Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Collaborative Review Groups (CRGs) are responsible the preparation and maintenance of reviews, co-ordinated by the editorial team. The editorial team is involved in a large number of tasks requiring a range of resources in achieving this goal.
Some of these resources are provided centrally, available on the Cochrane Website. For a great majority of resources, CRGs create their own. Whilst there is informal sharing of these resources, not all groups are necessarily aware of the excellent resources they can access from their colleagues.
The resources used are not standardized across the CRGs despite common forms being used by each group.
In 2001, the Collaboration appointed a Quality Improvement Manager to undertake a project assessing the processes currently used in the preparation and maintenance of Cochrane reviews, and to make recommendations about how to improve their quality and quantity.
Objectives: To build on the work already undertaken by the Quality Improvement Manager, ultimately to establish a website outlining best practice and providing best practice generic resources to support CRG s in their continual efforts to improve quality and ensure sustainability of the Collaboration.
Methods: - A directory reflecting workflow and editorial process in the production of a review was created. - All resources collected by the Quality Improvement Manager were sourced electronically. - Additional resources were gained from CRG websites or directly from the CRG. - Permission to place these resources on a website was gained from CRGs. - These resources were linked to the directory. - A working party, representative of CRGs, was established and identified a mechanism for identifying best practice and undertaking this process.
Results: Stage 1. Establishment of a web site where all of the strategies and resources for editorial and organizational processeswill be available in one central place.
Stage 2. Best practice and best practice resources to guide and facilitate efficient workflow and editorial and organizational processes, and additionally allow for efficient handover and training of new staff in are available in one central place.
Conclusions: Having good quality resources available to CRGs saves time, improves the quality and efficiency of work in the CRG, resulting in more time spent on the work of co-ordinating the preparation and maintenance of reviews. Ultimately it enhances support to reviewers and facilitates increased numbers involved in CRGs and reviews produced. It also helps to support sustainability of the Collaboration, ensuring institutional knowledge and resources are maintained centrally.
Acknowledgements: Nancy Owens, Quality Improvement Manager 2001- 2002 CRGs for their involvement, Working party
Some of these resources are provided centrally, available on the Cochrane Website. For a great majority of resources, CRGs create their own. Whilst there is informal sharing of these resources, not all groups are necessarily aware of the excellent resources they can access from their colleagues.
The resources used are not standardized across the CRGs despite common forms being used by each group.
In 2001, the Collaboration appointed a Quality Improvement Manager to undertake a project assessing the processes currently used in the preparation and maintenance of Cochrane reviews, and to make recommendations about how to improve their quality and quantity.
Objectives: To build on the work already undertaken by the Quality Improvement Manager, ultimately to establish a website outlining best practice and providing best practice generic resources to support CRG s in their continual efforts to improve quality and ensure sustainability of the Collaboration.
Methods: - A directory reflecting workflow and editorial process in the production of a review was created. - All resources collected by the Quality Improvement Manager were sourced electronically. - Additional resources were gained from CRG websites or directly from the CRG. - Permission to place these resources on a website was gained from CRGs. - These resources were linked to the directory. - A working party, representative of CRGs, was established and identified a mechanism for identifying best practice and undertaking this process.
Results: Stage 1. Establishment of a web site where all of the strategies and resources for editorial and organizational processeswill be available in one central place.
Stage 2. Best practice and best practice resources to guide and facilitate efficient workflow and editorial and organizational processes, and additionally allow for efficient handover and training of new staff in are available in one central place.
Conclusions: Having good quality resources available to CRGs saves time, improves the quality and efficiency of work in the CRG, resulting in more time spent on the work of co-ordinating the preparation and maintenance of reviews. Ultimately it enhances support to reviewers and facilitates increased numbers involved in CRGs and reviews produced. It also helps to support sustainability of the Collaboration, ensuring institutional knowledge and resources are maintained centrally.
Acknowledgements: Nancy Owens, Quality Improvement Manager 2001- 2002 CRGs for their involvement, Working party