Delphi Consensus Technique Research Articles

Defining quality outcomes for complex-care patients transitioning across the continuum using a structured panel process

BackgroundNo standardised set of quality measures associated with transitioning complex-care patients across the various healthcare settings and home exists. In this context, a structured panel process was used to define...

Development of the Guideline for HIV Testing in South Korea with Low Prevalence of HIV-1 Infection Based on the Expert Consensus

Purpose: This study was conducted to develop a guideline for HIV testing in South Korea where the HIV prevalence is very low. It is necessary to make the recommendations presented here based on the epidemiology of opportunistic infection and cancer in the community. Methods: The development of a guideline for HIV testing was conducted using literature reviews and the agreement of Korean experts for HIV patients using a two-round Delphi consensus technique. Each expert was asked to independently answer to each item related to HIV risk. Ten experts participated in the two-round survey. Results: The individual items were determined based on the following categories: high risk behavior, symptom and diseases, colo-rectal diseases, uro-genital diseases and gynecology, skin and oral diseases. The final guideline consisted of 4-scale agreement rating (strongly recommended, recommended, not routinely recommended, no recommendation for routine provision). Discussion: We have developed the guideline for HIV testing in a country where the HIV prevalence is low based on a systematic investigation and expert consensus.

STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Person’s Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment). Consensus validation

Older people experience more concurrent illnesses, are prescribed more medications and suffer more adverse drug events than younger people. Many drugs predispose older people to adverse events such as falls and cognitive impairment, thus increasing morbidity and health resource utilization. At the same time, older people are often denied potentially beneficial, clinically indicated medications without a valid reason. We aimed to validate a new screening tool of older persons' prescriptions incorporating criteria for potentially inappropriate drugs called STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions) and criteria for potentially appropriate, indicated drugs called START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right, i.e. appropriate, indicated Treatment). A Delphi consensus technique was used to establish the content validity of STOPP/START. An 18-member expert panel from academic centers in Ireland and the United Kingdom completed two rounds of the Delphi process by mail survey. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by determining the kappa-statistic for measure of agreement on 100 data-sets. STOPP is comprised of 65 clinically significant criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people. Each criterion is accompanied by a concise explanation as to why the prescribing practice is potentially inappropriate. START consists of 22 evidence-based prescribing indicators for commonly encountered diseases in older people. Inter-rater reliability is favorable with a kappa-coefficient of 0.75 for STOPP and 0.68 for START. STOPP/START is a valid, reliable and comprehensive screening tool that enables the prescribing physician to appraise an older patient's prescription drugs in the context of his/her concurrent diagnoses.

Considered judgement in evidence-based guideline development

Clinical practice guidelines should be based on the best available evidence. However, this evidence is often incomplete, controversial, or lacking. Other considerations beyond the evidence are therefore needed to be able to formulate specific and applicable recommendations for clinical practice. The aim of this study is to obtain consensus among experts about a set of domains and items covering the most relevant 'other considerations' to formulate recommendations in evidence-based guideline development. An initial list of 10 domains and 49 items for a systematic and considered judgement of scientific evidence was generated from the literature. A panel of Dutch experts in guideline development tested this list using a two-round Delphi consensus technique. Each expert was asked to independently score the relevance of the items on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 'very important' to 'not important'. The final list consisted of items that were included by at least 60% consensus. Twenty-eight experts participated in the first Delphi round and 21 of them in the second round. High scoring domains were 'clinical relevance', 'safety', and 'availability of resources'. There was consensus about the relevance of 37 items. The domain 'conflicts of interest by industry' was excluded because of lack of consensus. This is the first formal consensus approach towards structuring the considered judgement process in formulating recommendations in clinical guidelines. The final list of items can be used to facilitate the process of guideline development. The next step is to test the practical usefulness and applicability of this list in guideline development.

DEVELOPMENT OF A CLINICAL EXAMINATION IN NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN: A DELPHI TECHNIQUE

To establish the discriminatory items of the clinical examination of non-specific low back pain, important to physiotherapists. A focus group and Delphi technique with UK physiotherapists. A purposive sample of 30 physiotherapists attended a focus group and completed 3 rounds of Delphi questionnaires. Data were analysed using mixed qualitative and quantitative approaches. A frequency content analysis identified commonly identified tests and questions, whilst the Delphi consensus technique assumed consensus had been reached with greater than 80% agreement on item inclusion or exclusion. The focus group established the structure of the clinical examination with 15 domains of questioning or physical testing. Three rounds of Delphi questionnaires established the important items of the clinical examination. The list of tests and questions included items evaluating both the psychosocial and biomedical status of the patient as well as questions screening for red flags. This is the first work to establish discriminatory tests in the clinical examination of non-specific low back pain, important to physiotherapists. The clinical examination will subsequently be evaluated for item validity and data will undergo cluster analysis. The items of this clinical examination may provide evidence for the existence of homogenous sub-groups within the heterogeneous non-specific low back pain diagnosis.

Disagreement between Formal and Medical Record Criteria for the Diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome

To measure agreement between formal and medical record criteria for the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) among patients undergoing an emergency department evaluation for potential acute coronary symptoms. Cases of ACS were determined by both formal (World Health Organization 1984 criteria for acute myocardial infarction [AMI], Braunwald criteria for unstable angina pectoris [UAP]) and medical record criteria. In the latter, a diagnosis was made if providers indicated AMI or UAP anywhere in the medical record. All information included in formal criteria was available to clinicians establishing the medical record diagnosis. The two criteria for diagnosis were compared, and a kappa value was recorded. Two blinded observers adjudicated discordant cases, with a kappa value recorded. Disagreements between these two coinvestigators were resolved by a Delphi technique. A total of 375 eligible subjects were enrolled, of whom 65 (17%; 45 AMI, 20 UAP) had ACS by both sets of criteria. Formal and medical record criteria disagreed in 32 subjects. This represented 9% (95% confidence interval = 6% to 12%) of the overall study population but 33% (95% confidence interval = 23% to 43%) of subjects with possible ACS. Coinvestigators acting as judges and blinded to each other's determinations agreed that 25 of these subjects had ACS and three did not; they disagreed on four subjects (kappa = 0.54). Among these four subjects, a Delphi consensus technique determined that two subjects had AMI and two had no ACS. In a single-site study, among subjects who have possible ACS as determined by either or both formal and medical record criteria, these two sets of criteria disagree in almost one third of cases. Among discordant cases, even two expert judges frequently disagreed on the final diagnosis. A modified Delphi technique to address these disagreements is described.

Improving risk disclosure during the consent process

To provide guidance about the risks which should be disclosed to patients and documented during the consent process. The Delphi Consensus Technique was used to decide what constitutes mandatory risk disclosure for three index procedures. Documentation of risk on consent forms was audited and compared to these locally agreed standards. A four stage strategy for change was undertaken following which practice was reviewed. Mean mandatory risk documentation rose from 61.2% (95% CI: 58.1-64.4) pre-intervention, to 78.1% (95% CI: 72.6-83.6) post-intervention (ccc2; P < 0.001). Although we demonstrated some benefit from this simple approach, the need for pragmatic means of achieving and sustaining complete discussion and documentation of risks across all surgical interventions based on universally accepted standards remains.

A Delphi Study to Validate Competencies Required of Air Force Medical Surgical (46N3) Nurses in Mobilized Environments

The objectives of this study were to develop competencies for wartime and operations other than war for 46N3 Medical/Surgical Air Force nurses and to validate those competencies among a group of experts in the field. The sample consisted of 109 nurses with mobilization experiences. A Delphi consensus technique was used to validate both the importance of competencies required in a mobilization environment and to determine the level at which those competencies should be practiced. A web-based questionnaire was used to collect responses during three rounds of data collection. At the end of round 3, 83% of the importance statements achieved consensus whereas 67% of the level of practice statements achieved consensus. Those importance items validated were traditional assessment and interventions skills that represented noncontroversial practices. Those items not validated were either controversial or perceived as not pertinent in an austere mobilization environment.

Polypharmacy and hospitalization among older home care patients.

One of the major goals of home care is the prevention of hospitalization. The objective of this study was to examine the relation between medication use (number, type, and inappropriateness) and hospitalization among home care patients older than 65 years. A retrospective chart review of 833 discharged older home care patients was performed. These patients were consecutive discharges from a single home care agency who either (a) returned to independent self-care or care of the family (S/F Care group) or (b) were admitted to the hospital (Hospitalized group). Medication assessment within these two groups included total number of medications (prescription and nonprescription); degree of polypharmacy (percentage of patients taking 5 or more, 7 or more, and 10 or more medications); and prevalence for different types of medications, including different types of inappropriate medications. Inappropriate medications were designated according to a list that was previously developed through a modified Delphi consensus technique by a panel of 13 experts in geriatric pharmacology and has been utilized in other studies. Student's t test was used for continuous variables and chi-square test was used for categorical variables to evaluate for differences between the S/F Care group and the Hospitalized group (p <.05). For comparisons of types of medications, p < .01 was used for significant differences, because of the high number of comparisons made. Of 833 discharges, 644 (77.3%) returned to self-care or care of the Family (S/F Care group) and 189 (22.7%) were hospitalized. The Hospitalized group, compared with the S/F Care group, was taking a higher number of medications (mean +/- SD: 6.6+/-3.9 vs 5.7+/-3.4, p = .004), and had a higher percentage of patients taking 7 or more medications (46% vs 26%, p = .002) and 10 or more medications (21% vs 10%, p = .005), but not 5 or more medications. Only three types of medications were more commonly used among patients in the Hospitalized group than among patients in the S/F Care group: clonidine (4.2% vs 1.1%, p = .004); mineral supplements (23.8% vs 14.8%, p = .003); and metoclopramide (5.8% vs 2.0%, p = .006). The Hospitalized group had a lower percentage of patients taking inappropriate medications than did the S/F Care group (20% vs 27%, p = .040), but none of the types of inappropriate medications was used more often in either group. This study shows a relationship between high levels of polypharmacy and hospitalization. Although it cannot be determined from this study whether a higher number of medications was an indicator of sicker patients at risk for hospitalization, or whether a higher number of medications might have directly led to hospitalization, polypharmacy should still be considered a marker for older home care patients for whom prevention of hospitalization is the goal.

The Delphi List: A Criteria List for Quality Assessment of Randomized Clinical Trials for Conducting Systematic Reviews Developed by Delphi Consensus

Most systematic reviews rely substantially on the assessment of the methodological quality of the individual trials. The aim of this study was to obtain consensus among experts about a set of generic core items for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The invited participants were experts in the field of quality assessment of RCTs. The initial item pool contained all items from existing criteria lists. Subsequently, we reduced the number of items by using the Delphi consensus technique. Each Delphi round comprised a questionnaire, an analysis, and a feedback report. The feedback report included staff team decisions made on the basis of the analysis and their justification. A total of 33 international experts agreed to participate, of whom 21 completed all questionnaires. The initial item pool of 206 items was reduced to 9 items in three Delphi rounds. The final criteria list (the Delphi list) was satisfactory to all participants. It is a starting point on the way to a minimum reference standard for RCTs on many different research topics. This list is not intended to replace, but rather to be used alongside, existing criteria lists.

Inappropriate Drug Prescribing for the Community-Dwelling Elderly

To examine the amount of inappropriate drug prescribing for Americans aged 65 years or older living in the community. Cross-sectional survey of a national probability sample of older adults. The 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey, a national probability sample of the US civilian noninstitutionalized population, with oversampling of some population groups, including the elderly. The 6171 people aged 65 years or older in the National Medical Expenditure Survey sample, using appropriate weighting procedures to produce national estimates. Incidence of prescribing 20 potentially inappropriate drugs, using explicit criteria previously developed by 13 United States and Canadian geriatrics experts through a modified Delphi consensus technique. Three cardiovascular drugs identified as potentially inappropriate were analyzed separately since they may be considered appropriate for some noninstitutionalized elderly patients. A total of 23.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.4% to 24.6%) of people aged 65 years or older living in the community, or 6.64 million Americans (95% CI, 6.28 million to 7.00 million), received at least one of the 20 contraindicated drugs. While 79.6% (95% CI, 77.2% to 82.0%) of people receiving potentially inappropriate medications received only one such drug, 20.4% received two or more. The most commonly prescribed of these drugs were dipyridamole, propoxyphene, amitriptyline, chlorpropamide, diazepam, indomethacin, and chlordiazepoxide, each used by at least half a million people aged 65 years or older. Including the three controversial cardiovascular agents (propranolol, methyldopa, and reserpine) in the list of contraindicated drugs increased the incidence of probably inappropriate medication use to 32% (95% CI, 30.7% to 33.3%), or 9.04 million people (95% CI, 8.64 million to 9.44 million). Physicians prescribe potentially inappropriate medications for nearly a quarter of all older people living in the community, placing them at risk of drug adverse effects such as cognitive impairment and sedation. Although most previous strategies for improving drug prescribing for the elderly have focused on nursing homes, broader educational and regulatory initiatives are needed.