NURS2007 Assignment 3: Comparing Wound Care Guidelines Using AGREE II

This report presents a critical analysis of a wound care management guideline, specifically the HSE wound care management 2018, using the AGREE II tool. The assignment, part of NURS2007, involves a detailed evaluation across various domains including scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence. The report provides a structured assessment of the guideline's strengths and weaknesses, providing comments on each item within the AGREE II framework, and offering an overall quality assessment. The report highlights the guideline's strengths, such as the clear definition of objectives, systematic methods, and specific recommendations. It also identifies areas where the guideline could be improved, such as the lack of identified competing interests. The analysis culminates in a recommendation for the guideline's use, emphasizing its high quality and potential for direct application in a clinical setting, and the assignment adheres to the requirements of NURS2007, including the use of the AGREE II tool, and a comparison of two clinical practice guidelines with a focus on wound care management.

AGREE II Score Sheet
Domain Item
AGREE II Rating
1
Strongly
Disagree
2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly
Agree
Scope and
purpose
1. The overall objective(s) of the guideline is (are) specifically described.
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.
Comments: The population and objective is clearly defined both in introduction and foreword section. The health question covered is
understood from the information provided regarding division of different recommendation. Clinical question has been taken from the
HSE 2009 guideline
Stakeholder
involvement
4. The guideline development group includes individuals from all the relevant
professional groups.
5. The views and preferences of the target population (patients, public, etc.) have
been sought.
6. The target users of the guideline are clearly defined.
Comments: The strength of this guideline is that it has given good detail about different guidelines used for the group. For example,
the guideline review group comprise all relevant clinical experts from the field of wound care thus increasing the validity of the
guideline. The views and preference of target population has not been sought
Rigor of
development
7. Systematic methods were used to search for evidence.
8. The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described.
9. The strengths and limitations of the body of evidence are clearly described.
10. The methods for formulating the recommendations are clearly described.
11. The health benefits, side effects and risks have been considered in formulating
the recommendations.
12. There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting
evidence.
13. The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to its publication.
14. A procedure for updating the guideline is provided.
Comments: The guidelines give detailed description about the process used during guideline development. Systematic method has
been used by following the PRISMA guideline and using AGREE tool to select guidelines from international and national publications.
Clarity of
presentation
15. The recommendations are specific and unambiguous.
16. The different options for management of the condition or health issue are
clearly presented.
17. Key recommendations are easily identifiable.
Comments: One of the vital strength of this guideline is that all recommendation has been systematically divided and following care
options for all type of wound care is easy. It covers specific recommendation for general wound care, diabetic foot ulceration, pressure
ulcers, leg ulceration and palliative wound care.
Applicability 18. The guideline describes facilitators and barriers to its application.

Domain Item
AGREE II Rating
1
Strongly
Disagree
2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly
Agree
19. The guideline provides advice and/or tools on how the recommendations can
be put into practice.
20. The potential resource implications of applying the recommendations have
been considered.
21. The guideline presents monitoring and/ or auditing criteria.
22. The views of the funding body have not influenced the content of the guideline.
Comments: The guidelines have identified barriers to the application of recommendation such as identifying resource needs in
different setting. It has also provided possible solutions to address the barrier. For example, identifying educational needs has been
proposed. Audit criteria have been defined too.
Editorial
independence 23. Competing interests of guideline development group members have been
recorded and addressed.
Comments: This has not be identified
Overall
Guideline
Assessment
1. Rate the overall quality of this guideline. 1
Lowest
possible
quality
2 3 4 5 6
7
Highest
possible
quality
Overall
Guideline
Assessment
2. I would recommend this guideline for use. Yes Yes, with modifications No
Notes:
The HSE wound care management 2018 is a high quality evidence based guideline which can be directly applied in clinical setting
without any modification.
This score sheet has been adapted from the Agree II user manual from: https://www.agreetrust.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/AGREE-II-Users-Manual-and-23-item-Instrument-2009-Update-2017.pdf