Measuring guideline-concordant care when recommendations require clinical judgment: a mixed methods approach

Read full text
Authors: Vera Camões-Costa, Jennifer Neil, Danielle Mazza, Justin Kenardy, Bianca Brijnath, Duncan Mortimer, Joanne Enticott, Sharon Reid, Alexander Collie, Samantha Chakraborty
Cited by: 1
References: 19

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: General practitioners (GPs) face challenges in diagnosing and managing work-related mental health conditions. In Australia, this prompted the development of a national clinical guideline (the Guideline) to support high-quality care. However, measuring the implementation of recommendations that require clinical judgment remains methodologically challenging. OBJECTIVE: This study describes an approach to developing and testing a guideline-specific tool to assess concordance with recommendations in the context of an implementation trial. METHODS: We used an exploratory sequential mixed methods design. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 individuals with lived experience of work-related mental health conditions. The interview data informed personas and case studies, which were converted into 18 video vignettes simulating GP-patient consultations. Each vignette was mapped to a checklist of clinical indicators from the Guideline and paired with one multiple-choice and two short-answer questions. A scoring rubric (0-3 points per vignette) was developed and pilot-tested with three groups: GPs familiar with the Guideline, GPs unfamiliar with it, and medical/research students. Vignette content and questions were refined for internal consistency before use in a national implementation trial. RESULTS: Internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach's α = 0.74). In the IMPRovE trial, participants completed three vignettes per time point (score range: 0-9). Inter-rater reliability was almost perfect (Cohen's κ = 0.92) from 873 responses across 97 GPs. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers a rigorous, context-sensitive method for evaluating guideline-concordant care where recommendations require clinical judgment. Successfully implemented in a national trial, this approach offers a replicable method for evaluating guideline implementation where recommendations require nuanced clinical judgment. IMPROVE TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12620001163998, November 2020. SPANISH ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A597.

Fields of Study & Subjects

Clinical practice guidelines implementation Health Policy Implementation Science Mental Health and Patient Involvement

Publication details

Journal / source
International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Publication date
15 May 2026
Language
EN