Delivery of Virtual Care in Oncology: Province-Wide Interprofessional Consensus Statements Using a Modified Delphi Process.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cheung MC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8700064 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe diagnosis of constrictive bronchiolitis (CB) in previously deployed individuals, and evaluation of respiratory symptoms more broadly, presents considerable challenges, including using consistent histopathologic criteria and clinical assessments.Research questionWhat are the recommended diagnostic workup and associated terminology of respiratory symptoms in previously deployed individuals?Study design and methodsNineteen experts participated in a three-round modified Delphi study, ranking their level of agreement for each statement with an a priori definition of consensus. Additionally, rank-order voting on the recommended diagnostic approach and terminology was performed.ResultsTwenty-five of 28 statements reached consensus, including the definition of CB as a histologic pattern of lung injury that occurs in some previously deployed individuals while recognizing the importance of considering alternative diagnoses. Consensus statements also identified a diagnostic approach for the previously deployed individual with respiratory symptoms, distinguishing assessments best performed at a local or specialty referral center. Also, deployment-related respiratory disease (DRRD) was proposed as a broad term to subsume a wide range of potential syndromes and conditions identified through noninvasive evaluation or when surgical lung biopsy reveals evidence of multicompartmental lung injury that may include CB.InterpretationUsing a modified Delphi technique, consensus statements provide a clinical approach to possible CB in previously deployed individuals. Use of DRRD provides a broad descriptor encompassing a range of postdeployment respiratory findings. Additional follow-up of individuals with DRRD is needed to assess disease progression and to define other features of its natural history, which could inform physicians better and lead to evolution in this nosology.
| S-EPMC10154857 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND & AIMS:Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) is increasingly common among patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to provide consensus recommendations based on the medical literature that clinicians could use to manage patients with BE and low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia (HGD), or early-stage EA. METHODS:We performed an international, multidisciplinary, systematic, evidence-based review of different management strategies for patients with BE and dysplasia or early-stage EA. We used a Delphi process to develop consensus statements. The results of literature searches were screened using a unique, interactive, Web-based data-sifting platform; we used 11,904 papers to inform the choice of statements selected. An a priori threshold of 80% agreement was used to establish consensus for each statement. RESULTS:Eighty-one of the 91 statements achieved consensus despite generally low quality of evidence, including 8 clinical statements: (1) specimens from endoscopic resection are better than biopsies for staging lesions, (2) it is important to carefully map the size of the dysplastic areas, (3) patients that receive ablative or surgical therapy require endoscopic follow-up, (4) high-resolution endoscopy is necessary for accurate diagnosis, (5) endoscopic therapy for HGD is preferred to surveillance, (6) endoscopic therapy for HGD is preferred to surgery, (7) the combination of endoscopic resection and radiofrequency ablation is the most effective therapy, and (8) after endoscopic removal of lesions from patients with HGD, all areas of BE should be ablated. CONCLUSIONS:We developed a data-sifting platform and used the Delphi process to create evidence-based consensus statements for the management of patients with BE and early-stage EA. This approach identified important clinical features of the diseases and areas for future studies.
| S-EPMC5538857 | 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:BackgroundThere is wide variability of transfusion practices for children with hemorrhagic injuries across trauma centers. We are planning a multicenter, randomized clinical trial evaluating tranexamic acid in children with hemorrhage. Standardization of transfusion practices across sites is important to minimize confounding. Therefore, we sought to generate consensus-based transfusion guidelines for the trial.MethodsWe used a modified Delphi process utilizing a multi-site, multi-disciplinary panel of experts to develop our transfusion guidelines. A survey of 23 clinical categories on various aspects of transfusion practices was developed and distributed via SurveyMonkey®. Statements were graded on a 5-point Likert scale ("Strongly agree" to "This intervention may be harmful"). Statements were accepted if ≥ 80% of the panelists rated the statement as "Strongly agree" or "Agree". After each round, the responses were calculated and the results included on subsequent rounds.Results35 panelists from four pediatric trauma centers participated in the study, including 11 (31%) pediatric EM physicians, 8 (23%) pediatric trauma surgeons, 5 (14%) transfusionists, 5 (14%) pediatric anesthesiologists, and 6 (17%) pediatric critical care physicians (range of 8 to 10 from each clinical site). Four survey iterations were performed. In total 176 statements were rated and 39 were accepted by criteria across all 23 categories. An rational algorithm for transfusion in trauma was then developed.ConclusionsWe successfully developed transfusion guidelines for various aspects of the management of children with hemorrhagic injuries using a modified Delphi process with broad interdisciplinary participation. We anticipate implementation of these guidelines will help minimize heterogeneity of transfusion practices across clinical sites for the upcoming clinical trial evaluating tranexamic acid in children with hemorrhage.
| S-EPMC8130983 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeLocal treatment for bone metastases is becoming increasingly complex. National guidelines traditionally focus only on radiation therapy (RT), leaving a gap in clinical decision support resources available to clinicians. The objective of this study was to reach expert consensus regarding multidisciplinary management of non-spine bone metastases, which would facilitate standardizing treatment within an academic-community partnership.Methods and materialsA multidisciplinary panel of physicians treating metastatic disease across the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Alliance, including community-based partner sites, was convened. Clinical questions rated of high importance in the management of non-spine bone metastases were identified via survey. A literature review was conducted, and panel physicians drafted initial recommendation statements. Consensus was gathered on recommendation statements through a modified Delphi process from a full panel of 17 physicians from radiation oncology, orthopaedic surgery, medical oncology, interventional radiology, and anesthesia pain. Consensus was defined a priori as 75% of respondents indicating "agree" or "strongly agree" with the consensus statement. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy was employed to assign evidence strength for each statement.ResultsSeventeen clinical questions were identified, of which 11 (65%) were selected for the consensus process. Consensus was reached for 16 of 17 answer statements (94%), of which 12 were approved after Round 1 and additional 4 approved after Round 2 of the modified Delphi voting process. Topics included indications for referral to surgery or interventional radiology, radiation fractionation and appropriate use of stereotactic approaches, and the handling of systemic therapies during radiation. Evidence strength was most commonly C (n = 7), followed by B (n = 5) and A (n = 3).ConclusionsConsensus among a multidisciplinary panel of community and academic physicians treating non-spine bone metastases was feasible. Recommendations will assist clinicians and potentially provide measures to reduce variation across diverse practice settings. Findings highlight areas for further research such as pathologic fracture risk estimation, pre-operative radiation, and percutaneous ablation.
| S-EPMC9127274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHospitalized pediatric hematology-oncology (PHO) patients are at high risk for critical illness, especially in resource-limited settings. Unfortunately, there are no established quality indicators to guide institutional improvement for these patients. The objective of this study was to identify quality indicators to include in PROACTIVE (PediatRic Oncology cApaCity assessment Tool for IntensiVe carE), an assessment tool to evaluate the capacity and quality of pediatric critical care services offered to PHO patients.MethodsA comprehensive literature review identified relevant indicators in the areas of structure, performance, and outcomes. An international focus group sorted potential indicators using the framework of domains and subdomains. A modified, three-round Delphi was conducted among 36 international experts with diverse experience in PHO and critical care in high-resource and resource-limited settings. Quality indicators were ranked on relevance and actionability via electronically distributed surveys.ResultsPROACTIVE contains 119 indicators among eight domains and 22 subdomains, with high-median importance (≥7) in both relevance and actionability, and ≥80% evaluator agreement. The top five indicators were: (a) A designated PICU area; (b) Availability of a pediatric intensivist; (c) A PHO physician as part of the primary team caring for critically ill PHO patients; (d) Trained nursing staff in pediatric critical care; and (e) Timely PICU transfer of hospitalized PHO patients requiring escalation of care.ConclusionsPROACTIVE is a consensus-derived tool to assess the capacity and quality of pediatric onco-critical care in resource-limited settings. Future endeavors include validation of PROACTIVE by correlating the proposed indicators to clinical outcomes and its implementation to identify service delivery gaps amenable to improvement.
| S-EPMC7541142 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To conduct a Delphi survey informing a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers. DESIGN:This is a modified three-round Delphi survey delivered online for the first two rounds and in-person for the third round. Questions encompassed three themes: (1) predatory journal definition; (2) educational outreach and policy initiatives on predatory publishing; and (3) developing technological solutions to stop submissions to predatory journals and other low-quality journals. PARTICIPANTS:Through snowball and purposive sampling of targeted experts, we identified 45 noted experts in predatory journals and journalology. The international group included funders, academics and representatives of academic institutions, librarians and information scientists, policy makers, journal editors, publishers, researchers involved in studying predatory journals and legitimate journals, and patient partners. In addition, 198 authors of articles discussing predatory journals were invited to participate in round 1. RESULTS:A total of 115 individuals (107 in round 1 and 45 in rounds 2 and 3) completed the survey on predatory journals and publishers. We reached consensus on 18 items out of a total of 33 to be included in a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers. We came to consensus on educational outreach and policy initiatives on which to focus, including the development of a single checklist to detect predatory journals and publishers, and public funding to support research in this general area. We identified technological solutions to address the problem: a 'one-stop-shop' website to consolidate information on the topic and a 'predatory journal research observatory' to identify ongoing research and analysis about predatory journals/publishers. CONCLUSIONS:In bringing together an international group of diverse stakeholders, we were able to use a modified Delphi process to inform the development of a definition of predatory journals and publishers. This definition will help institutions, funders and other stakeholders generate practical guidance on avoiding predatory journals and publishers.
| S-EPMC7045268 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeveral challenges presently impede the conduct of prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology, including limited financial resources to support their associated costs and inadequate patient volume at most single institutions. This study was conducted to prioritize research questions within the field so that the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS), and other relevant professional societies, can direct the limited human and fiscal resources available to address the priorities that the stakeholders involved believe will have the most meaningful impact on orthopaedic oncology patient care.Questions/purposesThe purpose of this study was to use a formal consensus-based approach involving clinician-scientists and other stakeholders to identify the top priority research questions for future international prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology.MethodsA three-step modified Delphi process involving multiple stakeholder groups (including orthopaedic oncologists, research personnel, funding agency representation, and patient representation) was conducted. First, we sent an electronic questionnaire to all participants to solicit clinically relevant research questions (61 participants; 54% of the original 114 individuals invited to participate returned the questionnaires). Then, participants rated the candidate research questions using a 5-point Likert scale for five criteria (60 participants; 53% of the original group participated in this portion of the process). Research questions that met a priori consensus thresholds progressed for consideration to an in-person consensus meeting, which was attended by 44 participants (39% of the original group; 12 countries were represented at this meeting). After the consensus panel's discussion, members individually assigned scores to each question using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions that met preset criteria advanced to final ranking, and panel members individually ranked their top three priority research questions, resulting in a final overall ranking of research priorities.ResultsA total of 73 candidate research questions advanced to the consensus meeting. In the end, the consensus panel identified four research priorities: (1) Does less intensive surveillance of patients with sarcoma affect survival? (2) What are the survival outcomes over time for orthopaedic oncology implants? (3) Does resection versus stabilization improve oncologic and functional outcomes in oligometastatic bone disease? (4) What is the natural history of untreated fibromatosis?ConclusionsThe results of this study will assist in developing a long-term research strategy for the MSTS and, possibly, the orthopaedic oncology field as a whole. Furthermore, the results of this study can assist researchers in guiding their research efforts and in providing a justified rationale to funding agencies when requesting the resources necessary to support future collaborative research studies that address the identified orthopaedic oncology priorities.
| S-EPMC5670064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGuidance on the recommended durations of antibiotic therapy, the use of oral antibiotic therapy, and the need for repeat blood cultures remain incomplete for gram-negative bloodstream infections. We convened a panel of infectious diseases specialists to develop a consensus definition of uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections to assist clinicians with management decisions.MethodsPanelists, who were all blinded to the identity of other members of the panel, used a modified Delphi technique to develop a list of statements describing preferred management approaches for uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections. Panelists provided level of agreement and feedback on consensus statements generated and refined them from the first round of open-ended questions through 3 subsequent rounds.ResultsThirteen infectious diseases specialists (7 physicians and 6 pharmacists) from across the United States participated in the consensus process. A definition of uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infection was developed. Considerations cited by panelists in determining if a bloodstream infection was uncomplicated included host immune status, response to therapy, organism identified, source of the bacteremia, and source control measures. For patients meeting this definition, panelists largely agreed that a duration of therapy of ~7 days, transitioning to oral antibiotic therapy, and forgoing repeat blood cultures, was reasonable.ConclusionsIn the absence of professional guidelines for the management of uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections, the consensus statements developed by a panel of infectious diseases specialists can provide guidance to practitioners for a common clinical scenario.
| S-EPMC8561258 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsConsensus regarding an optimal algorithm for endoscopic treatment of papillary adenomas has not been established. We aimed to assess the existing degree of consensus among international experts and develop further concordance by means of a Delphi process.MethodsFifty-two international experts in the field of endoscopic papillectomy were invited to participate. Data were collected between August and December 2019 using an online survey platform. Three rounds were conducted. Consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement.ResultsSixteen experts (31%) completed the full process, and consensus was achieved on 47 of the final 79 statements (59%). Diagnostic workup should include at least an upper endoscopy using a duodenoscope (100%) and biopsy sampling (94%). There should be selected use of additional abdominal imaging (75%-81%). Patients with (suspected) papillary malignancy or over 1 cm intraductal extension should be referred for surgical resection (76%). To prevent pancreatitis, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be administered before resection (82%) and a pancreatic stent should be placed (100%). A biliary stent is indicated in case of ongoing bleeding from the papillary region (76%) or concerns for a (micro)perforation after resection (88%). Follow-up should be started 3 to 6 months after initial papillectomy and repeated every 6 to 12 months for at least 5 years (75%).ConclusionsThis is the first step in developing an international consensus-based algorithm for endoscopic management of papillary adenomas. Surprisingly, in many areas consensus could not be achieved. These aspects should be the focus of future studies.
| S-EPMC8878358 | biostudies-literature