1. The overall objective(s) of the guideline is (are) specifically described. Beskrevet under "why a framework"

Transcription

1 Bilag AGREE II vurdering af Cherny et al. European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) recommended framework for the use of sedation in palliative care. Palliative Medicine, 2009; 23: AGREE II INSTRUMENT

2 DOMAIN. SCOPE AND PURPOSE. The overall objective(s) of the guideline is (are) specifically described. Beskrevet under "why a framework" 2. The health question(s) covered by the guideline is (are) specifically described. 3. The population (patients, public, etc.) to whom the guideline is meant to apply is specifically described. Står på side : "selected palliative care pt s with otherwise refractory symptoms" 2

3 DOMAIN 2. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT 4. The guideline development group includes individuals from all relevant professional groups. Man må gå ud fra, at EPAC repræsenterer alle relevante professionelle grupper. 5. The views and preferences of the target population (patients, public, etc.) have been sought. Målgruppen går vi ud fra, er patienterne og deres pårørende 6. The target users of the guideline are clearly defined. "Medical providers " 3

4 DOMAIN 3. RIGOUR OF DEVELOPMENT. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence. Ja systematisk men dog kun søgt i MEDLINE 8. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described. S. 583 uklare in og eksl. kriterier. Ellers velbeskrevet. 9. The strengths and limitations of the body of evidence are clearly described. 4

5 DOMAIN 3. RIGOUR OF DEVELOPMENT continued 0. The methods for formulating the recommendations are clearly described.. The health benefits, side effects, and risks have been considered in formulating the recommendations. s 583 DOMAIN 3. RIGOUR OF DEVELOPMENT continued 2. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. pga den manglende evidens er der "blot" vejledt på baggrund af konsensus i ekspert gruppen 5

6 DOMAIN 3. RIGOUR OF DEVELOPMENT continued 3. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication. som led i skriveprocessen har guidelinen været til ekstern gennemlæsning. (reviewed) 4. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided. 6

7 DOMAIN 4. CLARITY OF PRESENTATION 5. The recommendations are specific and unambiguous. 6. The different options for management of the condition or health issue are clearly presented.. Key recommendations are DOMAIN easily identifiable. 5. APPLICABILITY

8 DOMAIN 5. APPLICABILITY 8. The guideline describes facilitators and barriers to its application. Her er vi ikke helt enige. Hvordan synes du spørgsmålet skal besvares? 9. The guideline provides advice and/or tools on how the recommendations can be put into practice. Der er bla. flere appendixsér 20. The potential resource implications of applying the recommendations have been considered. Nok ikke så velbeskrevet da denne guideline jo skal "guide" nationale guidelines. 8

9 DOMAIN 5. APPLICABILITY continued 2. The guideline presents monitoring and/or auditing criteria. DOMAIN 6. EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE 9

10 DOMAIN 6. EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE 22. The views of the funding body have not influenced the content of the guideline. Vi forstår nok ikke helt spørgsmålet Competing interests of guideline development group members have been recorded and addressed. 0

11 OVERALL GUIDELINE ASSESSMENT For each question, please choose the response which best characterizes the guideline assessed:. Rate the overall quality of this guideline. Lowest possible quality Highest possible quality 2. I would recommend this guideline for use. Yes Yes, with modifications No NOTES Der mangler information om ind og eksl. kriterier for den udvalgte litteratur. Der mangler "selvkritik" Sarah Højring Marianne Holm Andersen Charlotte Tambo Holm