Application of the PANELVIEW instrument to evaluate the guideline development process of the German polytrauma guideline

• Published in: European journal of trauma and emergency surgery (Munich : 2007) 2024-10, Vol.50 (5), p.2463-2470
• Main Authors: Goossen, Käthe, Bieler, Dan, Weise, Alina, Nothacker, Monika, Flohé, Sascha, Pieper, Dawid
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Critical Care Medicine; Emergency Medicine; Germany; Humans; Intensive; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Multiple Trauma - therapy; Original; Original Article; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Response rates; Sports Medicine; Surgery; Surgical Orthopedics; Surveys and Questionnaires; Traumatic Surgery
• ISSN: 1863-9933; 1863-9941; 1863-9941
• DOI: 10.1007/s00068-024-02470-6

Background PANELVIEW is an instrument for evaluating the appropriateness of the process, methods, and outcome of guideline development and the satisfaction of the guideline group with these steps. Objective To evaluate the guideline development process of the German guideline on the treatment of patients with severe/multiple injuries (‘German polytrauma guideline’) from the perspective of the guideline group, and to identify areas where this process may be improved in the future. Methods We administered PANELVIEW to the participants of the 2022 update of the German polytrauma guideline. All guideline group members, including delegates of participating medical societies, steering group members, authors of guideline chapters, the chair, and methodological lead, were invited to participate. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Comments received were categorised by domains/items of the tool. Results After the first, second, and last consensus conference, the guideline group was invited via email to participate in a web-based survey. Response rates were 36% ( n / N  = 13/36), 40% (12/30), and 37% (20/54), respectively. The mean scores for items ranged between 5.1 and 6.9 on a scale from 1 (fully disagree) to 7 (fully agree). Items with mean scores below 6.0 were related to (1) administration, (2) consideration of patients’ views, perspectives, values, and preferences, and (3) the discussion of research gaps and needs for future research. Conclusion The PANELVIEW tool showed that the guideline group was satisfied with most aspects of the guideline development process. Areas for improvement of the process were identified. Strategies to improve response rates should be explored.