Article type
Abstract
Background:
As the national independent public scientific agency, the French National Authority for Health (HAS) is tasked to provide evidence-based guidelines and produced up-to-date rapid and trustworthy guidelines. After the challenge of the pandemic COVID-19, which conducted HAS to produce living guidelines in close collaborations with learned societies, HAS has chosen to pursue its approach to adopt new methods, especially facilitating collaborations to ensure development and/or updating.
Objectives:
To develop an updating method and a labelling method.
Methods:
In parallel and connected projects, we performed a multidisciplinary and cross-functional working group, a scoping review, a survey, and meetings with medical societies.
Results:
In addition to its existing methods for developing recommendations, HAS adopted 2 new processes characterized by stronger collaborations and more agility to produce guidelines.
The first strategy is outsourcing the processes of guideline elaboration by learned societies. A specific guide and training tools were designed and set out all the conflict-of-interest management, methodological, and scientific elements that make up the HAS specifications and can award the HAS label. All along the process and at every crucial point of elaboration, regular "stop and go" meetings and exchanges are planned. In many cases, this method is a way to update an HAS guidelines portfolio.
The second strategy is establishing an updating process including identification of new evidence, evaluation of its impact on the existing guideline, and, if necessary, modification of the recommendations. All guideline’s actors are involved in the 3 different steps and could use a specific toolkit to formalize the different collaborations.
For these 2 strategies, experts from learned societies participate actively to identify prioritized topics to retain and/or to decide most efficient methods (full, rapid, partial, or agile) depending on the subject.
A 2-year pilot phase is in progress (>15 guidelines already engaged).
Conclusions:
Guideline developers must regularly adapt to their context and adopt new and agile methods. A quantitative and qualitative report will assess the impact of these strategies on the implementation and appropriation of recommendations. We will share our experience with the 3 related Guidelines International Network working groups (accelerated development, updating, and collaboration).
As the national independent public scientific agency, the French National Authority for Health (HAS) is tasked to provide evidence-based guidelines and produced up-to-date rapid and trustworthy guidelines. After the challenge of the pandemic COVID-19, which conducted HAS to produce living guidelines in close collaborations with learned societies, HAS has chosen to pursue its approach to adopt new methods, especially facilitating collaborations to ensure development and/or updating.
Objectives:
To develop an updating method and a labelling method.
Methods:
In parallel and connected projects, we performed a multidisciplinary and cross-functional working group, a scoping review, a survey, and meetings with medical societies.
Results:
In addition to its existing methods for developing recommendations, HAS adopted 2 new processes characterized by stronger collaborations and more agility to produce guidelines.
The first strategy is outsourcing the processes of guideline elaboration by learned societies. A specific guide and training tools were designed and set out all the conflict-of-interest management, methodological, and scientific elements that make up the HAS specifications and can award the HAS label. All along the process and at every crucial point of elaboration, regular "stop and go" meetings and exchanges are planned. In many cases, this method is a way to update an HAS guidelines portfolio.
The second strategy is establishing an updating process including identification of new evidence, evaluation of its impact on the existing guideline, and, if necessary, modification of the recommendations. All guideline’s actors are involved in the 3 different steps and could use a specific toolkit to formalize the different collaborations.
For these 2 strategies, experts from learned societies participate actively to identify prioritized topics to retain and/or to decide most efficient methods (full, rapid, partial, or agile) depending on the subject.
A 2-year pilot phase is in progress (>15 guidelines already engaged).
Conclusions:
Guideline developers must regularly adapt to their context and adopt new and agile methods. A quantitative and qualitative report will assess the impact of these strategies on the implementation and appropriation of recommendations. We will share our experience with the 3 related Guidelines International Network working groups (accelerated development, updating, and collaboration).