Main navigation

Endorsement of Products

In considering endorsement, the College critically reviews the scope, content, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, involvement of GPs in developing materials, applicability and ‘fit’ with a College and general practice perspective.

Organisations wishing to secure the College’s support and consequent use of the College crest, will need to provide the College with appropriate supporting information.

On receipt of supporting information, the appropriate National Standing Committee will review the material and determine an overall rating

1. Low: serious and extensive shortcomings
2. Moderate: potentially important and no serious shortcomings
3. High: minimal shortcomings and highly congruent with RACGP strategic priorities and quality GP care

If supportive of endorsement an endorsement paper is prepared for RACGP Council consideration. If endorsed, the agency will be notified and granted permission to use the College crest.

All agencies receiving endorsement will provide the College with an electronic version of the guidelines in a suitable format for inclusion on the RACGPs web site.

Timeframe

The process of endorsement can be time consuming. Submitting organisations should allow 12 weeks from the date of submitting for consideration. All organisations will receive a written response to their request within twelve weeks.

Guideline Endorsement

Two options are available to organisations seeking endorsement of a guideline:

1. Individual Guideline Approach: Agree Instrument: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation

The Agree Collaboration tool (see link below) provides a framework for assessing guidelines.

All agencies requesting endorsement need to:

1. Provide the RACGP with a copy of the guideline, details of the evidence base, other material considered relevant and how general practitioners (and/or RACGP representatives) have been involved in the development of the draft guideline.
2. Self assess their guidelines against the Agree Instrument and provide a brief written report on the outcome for RACGP consideration.
3. Consider how the proposed guideline complements or conflicts with existing College products such as the Guidelines for Preventive Activities in General Practice.
4. Provide a brief statement (1 page maximum) outlining the dissemination and implementation strategy in general practice¹.
5. Forward all material, preferably in electronic format, to the National Standing Committee: Quality Care Project Officer for consideration.

Please keep your supporting information to a minimum. We suggest maximum for all supporting information e.g. self-assessment, dissemination etc, how GPs involved not more than 4 pages.

2. Organisational Approach: Other Guideline Appraisal Approach

Some organisations have developed rigorous guideline development approaches. The College acknowledges high quality activity by other organisations. RACGP will consider a brief description of the submitting organisations of a rigorous guideline development approach as an alternative to use of the Agree tool.

In this instance, submitting organisations are required to supply

1. A copy of the guideline, the evidence base, other material considered relevant and how general practitioners (and/or RACGP representatives) have been involved in the development of the draft guideline
2. Provide a brief outline of the guideline development processes used.
3. Consider how the proposed guideline complements or conflicts with existing College products such as the Guidelines for Preventive Activities in General Practice.
4. Provide a brief statement (1 page maximum) outlining the dissemination and implementation strategy in general practice
5. Forward all material, preferably in electronic format, to the National Standing Committee: Quality Care Project Officer for consideration. Please keep your supporting information to a minimum. We suggest maximum for all supporting information e.g. self-assessment, dissemination etc, how GPs involved not more than 4 pages.

Other Material for Endorsement

All other requests for endorsement require consideration of the following:

1. Audience and ‘Fit’

1.1 Is the primary audience of the material general practitioners, general practice staff

1.2 Does the material relate to the College’s strategic direction

1.3 Does it complement College activities and program

1.4 Is the material of national relevance

1.5 Does the material ‘add value’ for general practitioners, ie relevant to clinical practice

2. Content and Quality

2.1 Is the material evidence based

2.2 Does the material have clear aims

2.3 Is the material balanced and comprehensive (i.e. not omitting important aspects of an issue)

2.4 Is the material current

Optional:

2.5 Does the material identify options, benefits and risks

2.6 Does the material identify areas of uncertainty and provide additional sources of information and support

2.7 Does the material support shared decision making

3. Dissemination

3.1 How does the submitting organisation plan to disseminate the material and to whom

3.2 Is the material part of a wider program of activities

In these instances, submitting organisations will be required to supply

1. A copy of the material including details of the evidence base, other material considered relevant and how general practitioners (and/or RACGP representatives) have been involved in the development of the draft guideline.
2. Provide a brief outline of the development processes used.
3. Provide a brief statement responding to the criteria above
4. Forward all material, preferably in electronic format, to the National Standing Committee: Quality Care Project Officer for consideration.

Please keep your supporting information to a minimum. We suggest maximum for all supporting information e.g. self-assessment, dissemination etc, how GPs involved not more than 4 pages.

Submit Endorsement Request

You should submit all material electronically to:

Jane London
Administrator
Royal Australian College of General Practitioners
Phone: 03 8699 0565
Email: jane.london@racgp.org.au

¹Producing a single guideline has limited impact. Best outcomes are achieved through a multi-faceted approach. See Bero, L et al (1998) Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings, in BMJ 317: 465-468

Publication Date: 16 March 2007