Finding Consensus About the Level of Medication Safety in a Hospital Setting: Development and an Example of Application of a Modified Delphi Method.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bohmdorfer-McNair B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8480327 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:In the last 20 years governments have sought to introduce policy that improves the quality of care provided in hospitals, yet little research has been done to understand how these policies are implemented, factors that affect the implementation process or what should be considered by decision-makers during policy development or implementation planning. Experts with real-life experience in the introduction and implementation of policy are best placed to provide valuable insight into practical issues that affect implementation and the associated outcomes of these policies. METHODS:A modified Delphi study of experts in hospital policy development and implementation was undertaken to investigate factors influencing the implementation of government-directed policy in the hospital setting. This study built on the findings of two previous studies - a qualitative study of clinician perspectives of policy implementation and a systematic review and meta-synthesis, in which common contextual factors and policy characteristics associated with policy implementation were ascertained. International experts with extensive experience in government-directed policy implementation at global, national, corporate, jurisdictional and organisational levels were asked to provide opinions on predetermined factors and the feasibility of considering these in policy development and implementation planning. Survey design and analysis was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS:Eleven experts from four countries and with different health system perspectives participated in the study. Consensus was reached on the importance of all predetermined factors in the first survey round with additional factors for investigation highlighted by participants for examination in subsequent rounds. On study completion, expert consensus was reached on 24 factors of importance; only 20 of these factors reached consensus for feasibility. CONCLUSIONS:Study findings indicated that, whilst there are multiple factors of importance in policy implementation across all Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains, some factors, such as establishment of roles and responsibilities for implementation and organisational lines of accountability, are feasible for consideration at a hospital level only. In addition, four factors did not reach consensus in terms of feasibility, indicating that it may not be practical to consider all factors of importance when implementing policy; this has important implications for implementation planning and resource allocation.
| S-EPMC6880558 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background'Screening tool of older people's prescriptions (STOPP) and screening tool to alert to right treatment (START)' criteria is a useful tool to assess the appropriateness of medicines among older adults. However, the original STOPP/START criteria developed in the West, may not be directly applicable to resource limited healthcare settings like Sri Lanka. Hence, we aimed to modify STOPP/START criteria (Version 2) to suit Sri Lanka.MethodTwo investigators (a clinical pharmacologist and a pharmacist) reviewed and flagged criteria that were unfeasible to Sri Lanka based on their previous research experiences on using STOPP/START version 1. A Delphi consensus methodology was conducted among six experts, including geriatricians, clinical pharmacologists, physicians and a pharmacist, to review and assess each criterion (including the ones flagged by the researchers) for suitability to Sri Lanka.ResultsTwo Delphi validation rounds were conducted. A final meeting was held with the participation of all experts to resolve disagreements and to establish 100% consensus. The expert panel agreed on a list of 105 criteria, including 70 STOPP and 35 START criteria, indicating an 8% reduction in criteria compared to the original version. Modifications included complete removal (n = 11), re-wording (n = 25), splitting (n = 1) of original criteria and adding a new criterion (n = 1). Main reasons for modifications were unavailability of some medicines in the country, unavailability or inaccessibility of specific clinical information required for assessment of criteria, and adherence to treatment guidelines commonly used in the country.ConclusionA list of 'Modified STOPP/START criteria for Sri Lanka' was developed. These criteria are currently being validated through a multi-centre study.
| S-EPMC6805460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antipsychotic medications are frequently prescribed to critically ill patients leading to their continuation at transitions of care thereafter. The aim of this study was to generate evidence-informed consensus statements with key stakeholders on antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing for ICU patients.DesignWe completed three rounds of surveys in a National modified Delphi consensus process. During rounds 1 and 2, participants used a 9-point Likert scale (1-strongly disagree, 9-strongly agree) to rate perceptions related to antipsychotic prescribing (i.e., experiences regarding delivery of patient care), knowledge and frequency of antipsychotic use, knowledge surrounding antipsychotic guideline recommendations, and strategies (i.e., interventions addressing current antipsychotic prescribing practices) for antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing. Consensus was defined as a median score of 1-3 or 7-9. During round 3, participants ranked statements on antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing strategies that achieved consensus (median score 7-9) using a weighted ranking scale (0-100 points) to determine priority.SettingOnline surveys distributed across Canada.SubjectsFifty-seven stakeholders (physicians, nurses, pharmacists) who work with ICU patients.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsParticipants prioritized six consensus statements on strategies for consideration when developing and implementing interventions to guide antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing. Statements focused on limiting antipsychotic prescribing to patients: 1) with hyperactive delirium, 2) at risk to themselves, their family, and/or staff due to agitation, and 3) whose care and treatment are being impacted due to agitation or delirium, and prioritizing 4) communication among staff about antipsychotic effectiveness, 5) direct and efficient communication tools on antipsychotic deprescribing at transitions of care, and 6) medication reconciliation at transitions of care.ConclusionsWe engaged diverse stakeholders to generate evidence-informed consensus statements regarding antipsychotic prescribing perceptions and practices that can be used to implement interventions to promote antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing strategies for ICU patients with and following critical illness.
| S-EPMC9722588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical care of pediatric sepsis depends on early recognition and basic initial steps and thus focused educational materials for providers in these early phases of care are needed. The authors sought to identify educational goals and establish a framework for those materials. The authors conducted a Delphi process to create consensus educational goals for the recognition and treatment of pediatric sepsis, focused on the needs of emergency and acute care providers. Experts in pediatric sepsis quality improvement and education were recruited. In each round the experts determined if a particular goal was appropriate for inclusion and provided edits if required. Free-text responses and additional goals were accepted. The primary author deidentified and collated the responses and distributed an updated list of goals prior to each round. Five experts participated in the Delphi process. After three rounds the panelists unanimously agreed on 14 educational goals. These goals include three on recognition, five on early treatment, three on treatment response, and three on continued treatment. Using a Delphi process the authors established a list of educational goals for pediatric sepsis care. The experts largely agreed upon the initial set of goals and quickly came to consensus on the majority of topics. This highlights a foundation for any future educational interventions. In addition to creating content standards for pediatric sepsis education, this Delphi process represents a useful tool that may be adaptable to educational content development in other topics.
| S-EPMC6194036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost patients transported by Ontario paramedics to the emergency department have non-emergent conditions and may be more appropriately served by subacute community-based care centres. We sought to determine consensus on a set of patient characteristics that could be useful to classify retrospective emergency department visits that had a high probability of being primary care-like and potentially redirectable to a subacute care centre by paramedics.MethodsWe conducted a modified Delphi study to assess expert consensus on characteristics of patients transported by paramedics to the emergency department from August to October 2021. An expert Delphi committee was constructed of emergency and family physicians in Ontario using purposive sampling. Experts rated whether each characteristic was useful to be included in a classification to identify potentially redirectable visits retrospectively, as well as characteristic details (e.g., upper and lower bounds). Consensus was considered 75% agreement.ResultsSixteen experts participated in the study; the experts were mostly male (75%) and evenly divided between emergency and family medicine. After 2 rounds, consensus was achieved on 8 of 9 characteristics (89%). Four characteristics were determined as useful to classify potentially redirectable emergency department visits: age (81%), triage acuity (100%), specialist consult in the emergency department (94%) and emergency department visit outcome (81%). Specifications of each characteristic were refined as follows: young and middle-aged adults with a non-emergent triage acuity, did not receive a specialist physician consult in the emergency department and discharged from the emergency department.InterpretationStrong consensus was achieved to specify a classification system for potentially redirectable emergency department visits. These results will be combined with knowledge of which subacute care centres could conduct the main physician interventions to retrospectively identify emergency department visits that could have been suitable for paramedic redirection for further research.Study registrationID ISRCTN22901977.
| S-EPMC9876581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe sought to develop diagnostic test guidance definitions for pediatric enteric infections to facilitate the interpretation of positive test results in the era of multianalyte molecular diagnostic test platforms.MethodsWe employed a systematic, two-phase, modified Delphi consensus process consisting of three web-based surveys and an expert panel face-to-face meeting. In phase 1, we surveyed an advisory panel of North American experts to select pathogens requiring diagnostic test guidance definition development. In phase 2, we convened a 14-member expert panel to develop, refine, and select the final definitions through two web-based questionnaires interspersed with a face-to-face meeting. Both questionnaires asked panelists to rate the degree to which they agreed that if the definition is met the pathogen is likely to be causative of clinical illness.ResultsThe advisory panel survey identified 19 pathogens requiring definitions. In the expert panel premeeting survey, 13 of the 19 definitions evaluated were rated as being highly likely ("agree" or "strongly agree") to be responsible for acute gastroenteritis symptoms by ≥67% of respondent panel members. The definitions for the remaining six pathogens (Aeromonas, Clostridium difficile, Edwardsiella, nonenteric adenovirus, astrovirus, and Entamoeba histolytica) were indeterminate. After the expert panel meeting, only two of the modified definitions, C. difficile and E. histolytica/dispar, failed to achieve the a priori specified threshold of ≥67% agreement.ConclusionsWe developed diagnostic test guidance definitions to assist healthcare providers for 17 enteric pathogens. We identified two pathogens that require further research and definition development.
| S-EPMC6180965 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch training is important for all resident physicians to be able to interpret and critically appraise scientific literature. It is particularly important for those desiring future careers in academics or research. However, there is limited literature on research training in residency. The ideal scope and content of a model curriculum for research in emergency medicine (EM) residency programs has not been recently defined.MethodsWe used a modified Delphi method to achieve expert consensus as to what content should be included in a model research curriculum for EM residents as well as for those who choose to undertake an elective in EM research.ResultsEight experts in EM clinical and education research participated in the modified Delphi process with two rounds of responses. Cronbach's alpha was 0.82 for round 1 and 0.95 for round 2. A curricular outline of 44 items was produced by this consensus process.ConclusionsA model curriculum for EM research is proposed here, along with references to assist residencies in building curricular components.
| S-EPMC8019147 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveChallenges can exist when framing the decision question in a cost-effectiveness analysis, particularly when there is disagreement among experts on relevant comparators. Using prostate cancer screening and recent developments in risk stratification, early-detection biomarkers, and diagnostic technologies as a case study, we report a modified Delphi approach to handle decision-question uncertainty.MethodsThe study involved two rounds of anonymous online questionnaires to identify the prostate cancer screening strategies that international researchers, clinicians and decision makers felt important to consider in a cost-effectiveness model. Both purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit experts. The questionnaire was based on a review of the literature and was piloted for language, comprehension and ease of use prior to dissemination. In Round 1, respondents indicated their preferred screening strategy (including no screening) through a series of multiple-choice questions. The responses informed a set of 13 consensus statements, which respondents ranked their agreement with on a 9-point Likert scale (Round 2). Consensus was considered reached if > 70% of participants indicated agreement and < 15% indicated disagreement.ResultsTwenty participants completed Round 1 and 17 completed Round 2. Consensus was shown towards comparing no formal screening, age-based, and risk-based strategies. The risk-based approaches included screening only higher-risk men, using shorter screening intervals for higher-risk men, screening higher-risk men at an earlier age, and tailoring screening intervals based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at a previous test. There was agreement that inclusion of MRI in the pathway should be considered, but disagreement on the inclusion of new biomarkers.ConclusionIn disease areas where technologies are rapidly evolving, a modified Delphi approach provides a useful tool to identify relevant comparators in an economic evaluation.
| S-EPMC8079293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Current practice to diagnose idiopathic orbital inflammation (IOI) is inconsistent, leading to frequent misdiagnosis of other orbital entities, including cancer. By specifying criteria, diagnosis of orbital inflammation will be improved. Objective:To define a set of criteria specific for the diagnosis of IOI. Design, Setting, and Participants:A 3-round modified Delphi process with an expert panel was conducted from June 8, 2015, to January 25, 2016. Fifty-three orbital scientist experts, identified through membership in the Orbital Society, were invited to participate in on online survey and they scored, using 5-point Likert scales, items that are eligible as diagnostic criteria from the literature and from personal experience. The items were clustered around the anatomic subtypes of IOI: idiopathic dacryoadenitis and idiopathic orbital fat inflammation (2 nonmyositic IOIs), and idiopathic orbital myositis (myositic IOI). Items with dissensus were rescored in the second round, and all items with consensus (median, ?4; interquartile range, ?1) were ranked by importance in the third round. Main Outcomes and Measures:Consensus on items to be included in the criteria. Results:Of the 53 experts invited to participate, a multinational panel of 35 (66%) individuals with a mean (SD) years of experience of 31 (11) years were included. Consensus was achieved on 7 of 14 clinical and radiologic items and 5 of 7 pathologic items related to diagnosis of nonmyositic IOI, and 11 of 14 clinical and radiologic items and 1 of 5 pathologic items for myositic IOI. There was agreement among panelists to focus on surgical tissue biopsy results in the diagnosis of nonmyositic IOI and on a trial with systemic corticosteroids in myositic IOI. Panelists agreed that a maximum number of 30 IgG4-positive plasma cells per high-power field in the orbital tissue is compatible with the diagnosis of IOI. Conclusions and Relevance:An international panel of experts endorsed consensus diagnostic criteria of IOI. These criteria define a level of exclusion suggested for diagnosis and include tissue biopsy for lesions not confined to the extraocular muscles. This consensus is a step toward developing guidelines for the management of IOI, which needs to be followed by validation studies of the criteria.
| S-EPMC5710199 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) is widely used to appraise the methodological quality of medical education studies. However, the MERSQI lacks some criteria which could facilitate better quality assessment. The objective of this study is to achieve consensus among experts on: (1) the MERSQI scoring system and the relative importance of each domain (2) modifications of the MERSQI.MethodA modified Delphi technique was used to achieve consensus among experts in the field of medical education. The initial item pool contained all items from MERSQI and items added in our previous published work. Each Delphi round comprised a questionnaire and, after the first iteration, an analysis and feedback report. We modified the quality instruments' domains, items and sub-items and re-scored items/domains based on the Delphi panel feedback.ResultsA total of 12 experts agreed to participate and were sent the first and second-round questionnaires. First round: 12 returned of which 11 contained analysable responses; second-round: 10 returned analysable responses. We started with seven domains with an initial item pool of 12 items and 38 sub-items. No change in the number of domains or items resulted from the Delphi process; however, the number of sub-items increased from 38 to 43 across the two Delphi rounds. In Delphi-2: eight respondents gave 'study design' the highest weighting while 'setting' was given the lowest weighting by all respondents. There was no change in the domains' average weighting score and ranks between rounds.ConclusionsThe final criteria list and the new domain weighting score of the Modified MERSQI (MMERSQI) was satisfactory to all respondents. We suggest that the MMERSQI, in building on the success of the MERSQI, may help further establish a reference standard of quality measures for many medical education studies.
| S-EPMC9878889 | biostudies-literature