BACKGROUND: Information systems for community health have become increasingly sophisticated and evidence-based in the last decade and they are now the most widely used health information systems in many low-income and middle-income countries. This study aimed to establish consensus regarding key features and interoperability priorities for community health information systems (CHISs).
METHODS: A Delphi study was conducted among a systematically selected panel of CHIS experts. This impressive pool of experts represented a range of leading global health institutions, with gender and regional balance as well as diversity in their areas of expertise. Through five rounds of iterative surveys and follow-up interviews, the experts established a high degree of consensus. We supplemented the Delphi study findings with a series of focus group discussions with 10 community health worker (CHW) leaders.
RESULTS: CHISs today are expected to adapt to a wide range of local contextual requirements and to support and improve care delivery. While once associated with a single role type (CHWs), these systems are now expected to engage other end users, including patients, supervisors, clinicians and data managers. Of 30 WHO-classified digital health interventions for care providers, experts identified 23 (77%) as being important for CHISs. Case management and care coordination features accounted for more than one-third (14 of 37, 38%) of the core features expected of CHISs today, a higher proportion than any other category. The highest priority use cases for interoperability include CHIS to health management information system monthly reporting and CHIS to electronic medical record referrals.
CONCLUSIONS: CHISs today are expected to be feature-rich, to support a range of user roles in community health systems, and to be highly adaptable to local contextual requirements. Future interoperability efforts, such as CHISs in general, are expected not only to move data efficiently but to strengthen community health systems in ways that measurably improve care.

BACKGROUND: Health information technology (HIT) is increasingly used to enable health service/system transformation. Most HIT implementations fail to some degree; very few demonstrate sustainable success. No guidelines exist for health service leaders to leverage factors associated with success. The purpose of this paper is to present an evidence-based guideline for leaders to test and leverage in practice.
METHODS: This guideline was developed from a literature review and refined by a set of eight interviews with people in senior HIT roles, which were thematically analysed. It was refined in the consultancy work of the first author and confirmed after minor refinements.
RESULTS: Five key actions were identified: relationships, vision, HIT system attributes, constant evaluation and learning culture.
CONCLUSIONS: This guideline presents a significant opportunity for health system leaders to systematically check relevant success factors during the implementation process of single projects and regional/national programmes.

Background: Lymphoedema is a condition of localised swelling caused by a compromised lymphatic system. The protein-rich fluid accumulating in the interstitial tissue can create inflammation and irreversible changes to the skin and underlying tissue. An array of methods has been used to assess and report these changes. Heterogeneity is evident in the clinic and in the literature for the domains assessed, outcomes and outcome measures selected, measurement protocols followed, methods of analysis, and descriptors used to report change. Objective: This study seeks consensus on the required items for inclusion in a core data set for upper limb lymphoedema to digitise the monitoring and reporting of upper limb lymphoedema. Methods: The breadth of outcomes and descriptors in common use were captured in prior studies by this research group. This list was refined by frequency and proposed to experts in the field (n = 70) through a two-round online modified Delphi study. These participants rated the importance of each item for inclusion in the dataset and identified outcomes or descriptors they felt were missing in Round 1. In Round 2, participants rated any new outcomes or descriptors proposed and preference for how numeric data is displayed. Results: The core dataset was confirmed on completion of Round 2. Interlimb difference as a percentage, and limb volume were preferred for graphed display over time; and descriptors for observed and palpated change narrowed from 42 to 20. Conclusion: This dataset provides the foundation to create a clinical support system for upper limb lymphoedema.

BACKGROUND: To identify indicators of guideline-concordant care in lung cancer, to implement such indicators with cancer registry data linked to health databases, and to pilot them in a cohort of patients from the cancer registry of the Milan Province.
METHODS: Thirty-four indicators were selected by revision of main guidelines by cancer epidemiologists, and then evaluated by a multidisciplinary panel of clinicians involved in lung cancer care and working on the pathway of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment in the Lombardy region, Italy. With a modified Delphi method, they assessed for each indicator the content validity as a quality measure of the care pathway, the degree of modifiability from the health professional, and the relevance to the health professional. Feasibility was assessed using the cancer registry and the routine health records of the Lombardy region. Feasible indicators were then calculated in the cohort of lung cancer patients diagnosed in 2007-2012 derived from the cancer registry of the Milan Province. Criterion validity was assessed reviewing clinical records of a random sample of 114 patients (threshold for acceptable discordance ≤20%). Finally, reliability was evaluated at the provider level.
RESULTS: Initially, 34 indicators were proposed for evaluation in the first Delphi round. Of the finally 22 selected indicators, 3 were not feasible because the required information was actually not available. The remaining 19 were calculated on the pilot cohort. After assessment of criterion validity (3 eliminated), 16 indicators were retained in the final set and evaluated for reliability.
CONCLUSIONS: The developed and piloted set of indicators is now available to implement and monitor, over time, quality initiatives for lung cancer care in the studied health system.

The learning health system depends on a cycle of evidence generation, translation to practice, and continuous practice-based data collection. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) represent medical evidence, translated into recommendations on appropriate clinical care. The FAIR guiding principles offer a framework for publishing the extensive knowledge work of CPGs and their resources. In this narrative literature review, we propose that FAIR CPGs would lead to more efficient production and dissemination of CPG knowledge to practice.

BACKGROUND: Health information in the EU is characterised by diversity and fragmentation of health information infrastructures. A well-defined and sustainable EU health information system infrastructure is lacking. The potential of a European Research Infrastructure Consortium on Health Information for Research and Evidence-based Policy (HIREP-ERIC) to take up this role is investigated.
METHODS: Two working groups, a BRIDGE Health Steering Committee and the European Commission\'s Drafting Group of the Expert Group on Health Information, discussed the technical and scientific description of the HIREP-ERIC through a consensus-driven modified Delphi technique.
RESULTS: Consensus was reached on three aspects of the HIREP-ERIC. First, it was defined as an infrastructure that facilitates interaction of networks and experts in health information by providing central governance and a more permanent collaboration. Second, the infrastructure should be distributed, with a central hub coordinating the operation of distributed networks. Third, it should provide easy access to high quality and comparable data for purposes of research and policy making, and focus its activities around generating, managing, exchanging and translating health information.
CONCLUSIONS: A momentum has been created where representatives from 16 European countries agreed on the HIREP-ERIC as a pragmatic bottom-up approach to strengthen the current EU health information landscape. A Member States\' commitment is needed at senior political level to make this consensus operational.

Cancer information is of critical interest to the public. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) offers a series of comprehensive patient guidelines on the management of the most common cancer diagnoses. This study was aimed at assessing the health literacy demands of NCCN patient guidelines for the most common malignancies in the United States.
The American Cancer Society\'s most common malignancies by annual incidence in the United States and their corresponding NCCN patient guidelines were identified. Four validated tools were used to evaluate literacy levels: 1) the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, 2) the Peter Mosenthal and Irwin Kirsch readability formula (PMOSE/IKIRSCH), 3) the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), and 4) the Clear Communication Index from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The average reading grade level was 10.3, which was higher than the recommended 6th-grade level. The average PMOSE/IKIRSCH score was 11; this corresponded to moderate complexity and required some college-level education for interpretation. Only 1 tool, the PEMAT, yielded scores above the benchmarks for high-quality materials. The PEMAT\'s understandability, actionability, and overall scores were 94%, 83%, and 91%, respectively. The average CDC index was 85%, which was below the recommended 90% for an appropriate health literacy demand.
Overall, the assessment indicates high demand scores for the readability and complexity of the NCCN patient guidelines and thus that the materials are not quite suitable for the general US adult population. Further input from patient focus groups to address appropriateness and usefulness is critical. Cancer 2018;124:769-74. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

暂无摘要。

The prevalence of heart failure remains high and represents the highest disease burden in Spain. Heart failure units have been developed to systematize the diagnosis, treatment, and clinical follow-up of heart failure patients, provide a structure to coordinate the actions of various entities and personnel involved in patient care, and improve prognosis and quality of life. There is ample evidence on the benefits of heart failure units or programs, which have become widespread in Spain. One of the challenges to the analysis of heart failure units is standardization of their classification, by determining which \"programs\" can be identified as heart failure \"units\" and by characterizing their complexity level. The aim of this article was to present the standards developed by the Spanish Society of Cardiology to classify and establish the requirements for heart failure units within the SEC-Excellence project.

Clinical practice guidelines are valuable sources of clinical knowledge for healthcare professionals. However, the passive dissemination of clinical practice guidelines like publishing in medical journals is ineffective in changing clinical practice behaviour. In this work, we proposed a framework to help adopting an active clinical practice guideline dissemination approach by automatically extracting clinical knowledge from clinical practice guidelines into a clinical decision support system-friendly format. The proposed framework is intended to help human modellers by automating some of the manual formalization activities in order to minimize their manual effort. We evaluated our framework using all recommendations from two clinical practice guidelines produced by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network: the \'Management of lung cancer\' clinical practice guideline and the \'Management of chronic pain\' clinical practice guideline. We conclude that the proposed framework can be effectively used to formalize drug and procedure recommendation in clinical contexts.