E-consensus on telemedicine in colorectal surgery: a RAND/UCLA-modified study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gallo G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8312353 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundLung cancer (LC) screening improves LC survival; the best screening method in terms of improving survival is low-dose CT (LDCT), outpacing chest X-ray and sputum cytology.MethodsA consensus of experts in Argentina was carried out to review the literature and generate recommendations for LC screening programmes. A mixed-method study was used with three phases: (1) review of the literature; (2) modified Delphi consensus panel; and (3) development of the recommendations. The Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework was used to generate 13 evaluation criteria. Nineteen experts participated in four voting rounds. Consensus among participants was defined using the RAND/UCLA method.ResultsA total of 16 recommendations scored ≥7 points with no disagreement on any criteria. Screening for LC should be performed with LDCT annually in the population at high-risk, aged between 55 and 74 years, regardless of sex, without comorbidities with a risk of death higher than the risk of death from LC, smoking ≥30 pack-years or former smokers who quit smoking within 15 years. Screening will be considered positive when finding a solid nodule ≥6 mm in diameter (or ≥113 mm3) on baseline LDCT and 4 mm in diameter if a new nodule is identified on annual screening. A smoking cessation programme should be offered, and cardiovascular risk assessment should be performed. Institutions should have a multidisciplinary committee, have protocols for the management of symptomatic patients not included in the programme and distribute educational material.ConclusionThe recommendations provide a basis for minimum requirements from which local institutions can develop their own protocols adapted to their needs and resources.
| S-EPMC9900059 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveCommunity paramedicine programme are often designed to address repeated and non-urgent use of paramedic services by providing patients with alternatives to the traditional 'treat and transport' ambulance model of care. We sought to investigate the level of consensus that could be found by a panel of experts regarding appropriate health, social and environmental domains that should be assessed in community paramedicine home visit programme.DesignWe applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method in a modified Delphi method to investigate the level of consensus on assessment domains for use in community paramedicine home visit programme.Setting and participantsWe included a multi-national panel of 17 experts on community paramedicine and in-home assessment from multiple settings (paramedicine, primary care, mental health, home and community care, geriatric care).MeasuresA list of potential assessment categories was established after a targeted literature review and confirmed by panel members. Over multiple rounds, panel members scored the appropriateness of 48 assessment domains on a Likert scale from 0 (not appropriate) to 5 (very appropriate). Scores were then reviewed at an in-person meeting and a finalised list of assessment domains was generated.ResultsAfter the preliminary round of scoring, all 48 assessment domains had scores that demonstrated consensus. Nine assessment domains (18.8%) demonstrated a wider range of rated appropriateness. No domains were found to be not appropriate. Achieving consensus about the appropriateness of assessment domains on the first round of scoring negated the need for subsequent rounds of scoring. The in-person meeting resulted in re-grouping assessment domains and adding an additional domain about urinary continence.ConclusionAn international panel of experts with knowledge about in-home assessment by community paramedics demonstrated a high level of agreement on appropriate patient assessment domains for community paramedicine home visit programme. Community paramedicine home visit programme are likely to have similar patient populations. A standardised assessment instrument may be viable in multiple settings.
| S-EPMC6797257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth care-related harm is an internationally recognized threat to public health. The United Kingdom's national health services demonstrate that upwards of 90% of health care encounters can be delivered in ambulatory settings. Other countries are transitioning to more family practice-based health care systems, and efforts to understand avoidable harm in these settings is needed.MethodsWe developed 100 scenarios reflecting a range of diseases and informed by the World Health Organization definition of 'significant harm'. Scenarios included different types of patient safety incidents occurring by commission and omission, demonstrated variation in timeliness of intervention, and conditions where evidence-based guidelines are available or absent. We conducted a two-round RAND / UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus study with a panel of family practitioners in England to define "avoidable harm" within family practice. Panelists rated their perceptions of avoidability for each scenario. We ran a k-means cluster analysis of avoidability ratings.ResultsPanelists reached consensus for 95 out of 100 scenarios. The panel agreed avoidable harm occurs when a patient safety incident could have been probably, or totally, avoided by the timely intervention of a health care professional in family practice (e.g. investigations, treatment) and / or an administrative process (e.g. referrals, alerts in electronic health records, procedures for following up results) in accordance with accepted evidence-based practice and clinical governance. Fifty-four scenarios were deemed avoidable, whilst 31 scenarios were rated unavoidable and reflected outcomes deemed inevitable regardless of family practice intervention. Scenarios with low avoidability ratings (1?s or 2?s) were not represented by the categories that were used to generate scenarios, whereas scenarios with high avoidability ratings (7?s 8?s or 9?s) were represented by these a priori categories.DiscussionThe findings from this RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method study define the characteristics and conditions that can be used to standardize measurement of outcomes for primary care patient safety.ConclusionWe have developed a definition of avoidable harm that has potential for researchers and practitioners to apply across primary care settings, and bolster international efforts to design interventions to target avoidable patient safety incidents that cause the most significant harm to patients.
| S-EPMC6777037 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Medicines are the most used health technology in Long-Term Care. The prevalence of potentially inappropriate medicines amongst Long-Term Care patients is high. Pharmacists, assisted by prescribing-assessment tools, can play an important role in optimizing medication use at this level of care. Through a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, 13 long-term care and hospital pharmacists assessed as 'appropriate', 'uncertain', or 'inappropriate' a collection of commonly used prescribing-assessment tools as to its suitability in assisting pharmacy practice in institutional long-term care settings. A qualitative analysis of written or transcribed comments of participants was pursued to identify relevant characteristics of prescribing-assessment tools and potential hinders in their use. From 24 different tools, pharmacists classified 9 as 'appropriate' for pharmacy practice targeted to long-term care patients, while 3 were classified as 'inappropriate'. The tools feature most appreciated by study participants was the indication of alternatives to potentially inappropriate medication. Lack of time and/or pharmacists and limited access to clinical information seems to be the most relevant hinders for prescribing-assessment tools used in daily practice.
| S-EPMC8708836 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Headache is the most frequent neurological symptom in childhood and the main reason for admission to pediatric emergency departments. The aim of this consensus document is to define a shared clinical pathway between primary care pediatricians (PCP) and hospitals for the management of children presenting with headache. For the purposes of the study, a group of hospital pediatricians and a group of PCP from the Emilia Romagna's health districts were selected to achieve consensus using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Thirty-nine clinical scenarios were developed: for each scenario, participants were asked to rank the appropriateness of each option from 1 to 9. Agreement was reached if ≥75% of participants ranked within the same range of appropriateness. The answers, results, and discussion helped to define the appropriateness of procedures with a low level of evidence regarding different steps of the diagnostic-therapeutic process: primary care evaluation, emergency department evaluation, hospital admission, acute therapy, prophylaxis, and follow-up. The RAND proved to be a valid method to value appropriateness of procedures and define a diagnostic-therapeutic pathway suitable to the local reality in the management of pediatric headache. From our results, some useful recommendations were developed for optimizing the healthcare professionals' network among primary care services and hospitals.
| S-EPMC8877535 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOntario ambulances are restricted from patient transportation to sub-acute levels of care when these facilities may be more suitable than emergency departments for non-emergent conditions. There is no known patient classification specifically constructed to inform ED diversion protocols and guidance for sub-acute centre transportation for primary care-like patient conditions.ObjectiveTo construct a novel patient classification of potentially preventable emergency department visits following transport by ambulance, and analyse patient-level characteristic associations with this classification based in Ontario secondary data.Methods and analysisThe Primary Care-like Ambulance transports following Response for 911-Emergencies (PriCARE) patient classification will be constructed using a two-phase RAND/UCLA modified Delphi design. All experts included are physicians with relevant experience in emergency and/or primary care in Ontario. The first phase of the study will determine consensus of the expert committee on which ED interventions performed on patients with non-emergent acuities could be conducted in sub-acute healthcare centres. The second phase will assess consensus of which patient, hospital and acuity factors are most appropriate to be incorporated into a PriCARE classification. We will also investigate secondary outcomes on consensus of which ED interventions could be transferred to a paramedic context given an expanded scope of practice and patient-level characteristics of PriCARE classified individuals.Ethics and disseminationThis study received a research ethics board exemption waiver from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board; review reference 2020-11451-GRA. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. The results will be shared with Ontario paramedic services and governing institutions. This study will be used to inform patient classification protocols and clinical decision tools for ambulances to transport to sub-acute healthcare centres.Trial registration numberISRCTN22901977.
| S-EPMC7818828 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bronchial asthma is the most frequent chronic disease in children and affects up to 20% of the pediatric population, depending on the geographical area. Asthma symptoms vary over time and in intensity, and acute asthma attack can resolve spontaneously or in response to therapy. The aim of this project was to define the care pathway for pediatric patients who come to the primary care pediatrician or Emergency Room with acute asthmatic access. The project was developed in the awareness that for the management of these patients, broad coordination of interventions in the pre-hospital phase and the promotion of timely and appropriate assistance modalities with the involvement of all health professionals involved are important. Through the application of the RAND method, which obliges to discuss the statements derived from the guidelines, there was a clear increase in the concordance in the behavior on the management of acute asthma between primary care pediatricians and hospital pediatricians. The RAND method was found to be useful for the selection of good practices forming the basis of an evidence-based approach, and the results obtained form the basis for further interventions that allow optimizing the care of the child with acute asthma attack at the family and pediatric level. An important point of union between the primary care pediatrician and the specialist hospital pediatrician was the need to share spirometric data, also including the use of new technologies such as teleconsultation. Monitoring the progress of asthma through spirometry could allow the pediatrician in the area to intervene early by modifying the maintenance therapy and help the patient to achieve good control of the disease.
| S-EPMC8657661 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Surgical treatment is common, and there is a great need to improve the delivery of such care. The gold standard for evaluating surgery is within well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the impact of RCTs is diminished by a lack of coordinated outcome measurement and reporting. A solution to these issues is to develop an agreed standard "core" set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to facilitate cross-study comparisons, meta-analysis, and minimize outcome reporting bias. This study defines a core outcome set for CRC surgery.Methods and findingsThe scope of this COS includes clinical effectiveness trials of surgical interventions for colorectal cancer. Excluded were nonsurgical oncological interventions. Potential outcomes of importance to patients and professionals were identified through systematic literature reviews and patient interviews. All outcomes were transcribed verbatim and categorized into domains by two independent researchers. This informed a questionnaire survey that asked stakeholders (patients and professionals) from United Kingdom CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain. Respondents were resurveyed following group feedback (Delphi methods). Outcomes rated as less important were discarded after each survey round according to predefined criteria, and remaining outcomes were considered at three consensus meetings; two involving international professionals and a separate one with patients. A modified nominal group technique was used to gain the final consensus. Data sources identified 1,216 outcomes of CRC surgery that informed a 91 domain questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63 out of 81 (78%) centers, including 90 professionals, and 97 out of 267 (35%) patients. Second round response rates were high for all stakeholders (>80%). Analysis of responses lead to 45 and 23 outcome domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. Consensus meetings generated agreement on a 12 domain COS. This constituted five perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains (including fecal urgency and incontinence), and three oncological outcome domains (including long-term survival).ConclusionThis study used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in colorectal cancer surgical trials. It is now necessary to validate the use of this set in research practice.
| S-EPMC4978448 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Discharge from acute mental health inpatient units is often a vulnerable period for patients. Multiple professionals and agencies are involved and processes and procedures are not standardized, often resulting in communication delays and co-ordination failures. Early and appropriate discharge planning and standardization of procedures could make inpatient care safer. Aim: To inform the development of a multi-component best practice guidance for discharge planning (including the 6 component SAFER patient flow bundle) to support safer patient transition from mental health hospitals to the community. Methods: Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness method, a panel of 10 professional stakeholders (psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, clinical psychologists, pharmacists, academics, and policy makers) rated evidence-based statements. Six hundred and sixty-eight statements corresponding to 10 potential components of discharge planning best practice were rated on a 9-point integer scale for clarity, appropriateness and feasibility (median ≥ 7-9) using an online questionnaire then remote online face-to-face meetings. Results: Five of the six "SAFER" patient flow bundle components were appropriate and feasible for inpatient mental health. One component, "Early Flow," was rated inappropriate as mental health settings require more flexibility. Overall, 285 statements were rated as appropriate and feasible. Forty-four statements were considered appropriate but not feasible to implement. Discussion: This consensus study has identified components of a best practice guidance/intervention for discharge planning for UK mental health settings. Although some components describe processes that already happen in everyday clinical interactions (i.e., review by a senior clinician), standardizing such processes could have important safety benefits alongside a tailored and timely approach to post-discharge care.
| S-EPMC8680088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To further develop and validate previously published national prescribing appropriateness criteria to assist in identifying drug-related problems (DRPs) for commonly occurring medications and medical conditions in older (≥65 years old) Australians. RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. A panel of medication management experts were identified consisting of geriatricians/pharmacologists, clinical pharmacists and disease management advisors to organisations that produce Australian evidence-based therapeutic publications. This resulted in a round-one panel of 15 members, and a round-two panel of 12 members. Agreement on all criteria. Forty-eight prescribing criteria were rated. In the first rating round via email, there was disagreement regarding 17 of the criteria according to median panel ratings. During a face-to-face second round meeting, discussion resulted in retention of 25 criteria after amendments, agreement for 14 criteria with no changes required and deletion of 9 criteria. Two new criteria were added, resulting in a final validated list of 41 prescribing appropriateness criteria. Agreement after round two was reached for all 41 criteria, measured by median panel ratings and the amount of dispersion of panel ratings, based on the interpercentile range. A set of 41 Australian prescribing appropriateness criteria were validated by an expert panel. Use of these criteria, together with clinical judgement and other medication review processes such as patient interview, is intended to assist in improving patient care by efficiently detecting potential DRPs related to commonly occurring medicines and medical conditions in older Australians. These criteria may also contribute to the medication management education of healthcare professionals.
| S-EPMC3467596 | biostudies-literature