Modified Delphi Consensus Process Research Articles

Survivorship Care for People Affected by Advanced or Metastatic Cancer: MASCC-ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations.

People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared with those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end of life. These Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. A MASCC-ASCO expert panel was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including eight people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low- to middle-resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥94.8% agreement for seven standards, (1) Person-Centered Care; (2) Coordinated and Integrated Care; (3) Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; (4) Evaluated and Communicated Care; (5) Accessible and Equitable Care; (6) Sustainable and Resourced Care; and (7) Research and Data-Driven Care, and ≥84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders (health care professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers). Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.Additional information is available at www.mascc.org, www.asco.org/standards and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

A Modified Delphi Consensus Approach to Define Entrustable Professional Activities for Neurocritical Care Advanced Practice Providers.

To define consensus entrustable professional activities (EPAs) for neurocritical care (NCC) advanced practice providers (APPs), establish validity evidence for the EPAs, and evaluate factors that inform entrustment expectations of NCC APP supervisors. A three-round modified Delphi consensus process followed by application of the EQual rubric and assessment of generalizability by clinicians not affiliated with academic medical centers. Electronic surveys. NCC APPs (n = 18) and physicians (n = 12) in the United States with experience in education scholarship or APP program leadership. None. The steering committee generated an initial list of 61 possible EPAs. The panel proposed 30 additional EPAs. A total of 47 unique nested EPAs were retained by consensus opinion. The steering committee defined six core EPAs addressing medical knowledge, procedural competencies, and communication proficiency which encompassed the nested EPAs. All core EPAs were retained and subsequently met the previously described cut score for quality and structure using the EQual rubric. Most clinicians who were not affiliated with academic medical centers rated each of the six core EPAs as very important or mandatory. Entrustment expectations did not vary by prespecified groups. Expert consensus was used to create EPAs for NCC APPs that reached a predefined quality standard and were important to most clinicians in different practice settings. We did not identify variables that significantly predicted entrustment expectations. These EPAs may aid in curricular design for an EPA-based assessment of new NCC APPs and may inform the development of EPAs for APPs in other critical care subspecialties.

Development of the assessment standards of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) Geriatric Core Set through a modified Delphi method

BackgroundThere is currently a lack of functional assessment tools based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) theoretical framework that are specific for older adults.ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to develop Chinese assessment standards of the ICF Geriatric Core Set for functional evaluation of older adults.MethodsA two-stage study process was conducted to develop the assessment standards of the ICF Geriatric Core Set: establishment of candidate assessment standards, and a modified Delphi consensus process including a pilot survey and two-round formal expert survey. Thirty participants in the field of ICF and geriatric rehabilitation were recruited. The suitability of the assessment standards in the questionnaires was rated using a Likert 5-level scoring method. The arithmetic mean, the full mark ratio and the coefficient of variation (CV) were used as screening indicators for the assessment standards, and modification was made for several standards, in line with the Delphi results and the expert panel discussion.ResultsThirty-three candidate assessment standards belonging to 17 categories were generated. A total of 26 and 24 experts in the field of ICF and geriatric rehabilitation participated in the two-round survey, respectively. Five standards belonging to four categories entered into the second-round survey directly, five standards belonged to five categories entered with minor modification, and nine standards belonging to seven categories were redesigned based on the literature and discussion of the expert panel. In the second-round survey,15 assessment standards belonging to 15 categories met the screening requirements and four assessment standards belonged to the two remaining categories that needed a criterion and which the expert panel discussed for the final decision.ConclusionsUsing the modified Delphi method, the assessment standards of the ICF Geriatric Core Set have been developed.Future work should focus on the reliability and validity of the the assessment standards and their application to the health management of older adults.

The Sac Evolution Imaging Follow-Up after EVAR: an international expert opinion-based Delphi consensus study

ObjectiveManagement of follow-up protocols after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), vary significantly between centres and is not standardized according to the sac regression. By designing an international expert-based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on follow-up after EVAR according to sac evolution. MethodsEight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted, using a 4-point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three-round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts’ responses, only those statements reaching a Grade A (full agreement ≥75%) or B (overall agreement ≥80% and full disagreement <5%) were included in the final document. ResultsOne-hundred and seventy-four participants were included in the final analysis, and each voted the initial 29 statements related to the definition of sac regression (Q1-Q9), EVAR follow-up (Q10-Q14), and the assessment and role of sac regression during follow-up (Q15-Q29). At the end of the process, 2 statements (6.9%) were rejected, 9 statements (31%) received a grade B consensus strength, and 18 (62.1%) reached a grade A consensus strength. Out of twenty-seven final statements, fifteen statements (55.6%) were classified as grade I, while twelve (44.4%) were classified as grade II. Experts agreed that sac regression should be considered an important indicator of EVAR success and always be assessed during follow-up after EVAR. ConclusionsBased on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert-based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide current clinical management of follow-up after EVAR according to the sac regression. Future studies are needed to clarify debated issues.

Minimum labelling requirements for dermatology artificial intelligence-based Software as Medical Device (SaMD): A consensus statement.

Artificial intelligence (AI) holds remarkable potential to improve care delivery in dermatology. End users (health professionals and general public) of AI-based Software as Medical Devices (SaMD) require relevant labelling information to ensure that these devices can be used appropriately. Currently, there are no clear minimum labelling requirements for dermatology AI-based SaMDs. Common labelling recommendations for AI-based SaMD identified in a recent literature review were evaluated by an Australian expert panel in digital health and dermatology via a modified Delphi consensus process. A nine-point Likert scale was used to indicate importance of 10 items, and voting was conducted to determine the specific characteristics to include for some items. Consensus was achieved when more than 75% of the experts agreed that inclusion of information was necessary. There was robust consensus supporting inclusion of all proposed items as minimum labelling requirements; indication for use, intended user, training and test data sets, algorithm design, image processing techniques, clinical validation, performance metrics, limitations, updates and adverse events. Nearly all suggested characteristics of the labelling items received endorsement, except for some characteristics related to performance metrics. Moreover, there was consensus that uniform labelling criteria should apply across all AI categories and risk classes set out by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This study provides critical evidence for setting labelling standards by the Therapeutic Goods Administration to safeguard patients, health professionals, consumers, industry, and regulatory bodies from AI-based dermatology SaMDs that do not currently provide adequate information about how they were developed and tested.

Core outcome measurement set for research and clinical practice in post-COVID-19 condition (long COVID) in children and young people: an international Delphi consensus study "PC-COS Children".

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic substantially impacted different age groups, with children and young people not exempted. Many have experienced enduring health consequences. Presently, there is no consensus on the health outcomes to assess in children and young people with post-COVID-19 condition. Furthermore, it is unclear which measurement instruments are appropriate for use in research and clinical management of children and young people with post-COVID-19. To address these unmet needs, we conducted a consensus study, aiming to develop a core outcome set (COS) and an associated core outcome measurement set (COMS) for evaluating post-COVID-19 condition in children and young people. Our methodology comprised of two phases. In phase 1 (to create a COS), we performed an extensive literature review and categorisation of outcomes, and prioritised those outcomes in a two-round online modified Delphi process followed by a consensus meeting. In phase 2 (to create the COMS), we performed another modified Delphi consensus process to evaluate measurement instruments for previously defined core outcomes from phase 1, followed by an online consensus workshop to finalise recommendations regarding the most appropriate instruments for each core outcome. In phase 1, 214 participants from 37 countries participated, with 154 (72%) contributing to both Delphi rounds. The subsequent online consensus meeting resulted in a final COS which encompassed seven critical outcomes: fatigue; post-exertion symptoms; work/occupational and study changes; as well as functional changes, symptoms, and conditions relating to cardiovascular, neuro-cognitive, gastrointestinal and physical outcomes. In phase 2, 11 international experts were involved in a modified Delphi process, selecting measurement instruments for a subsequent online consensus workshop where 30 voting participants discussed and independently scored the selected instruments. As a result of this consensus process, four instruments met a priori consensus criteria for inclusion: PedsQL multidimensional fatigue scale for "fatigue"; PedsQL gastrointestinal symptom scales for "gastrointestinal"; PedsQL cognitive functioning scale for "neurocognitive" and EQ-5D for "physical functioning". Despite proposing outcome measurement instruments for the remaining three core outcomes ("cardiovascular", "post-exertional malaise", "work/occupational and study changes"), a consensus was not achieved. Our international, consensus-based initiative presents a robust framework for evaluating post-COVID-19 condition in children and young people in research and clinical practice via a rigorously defined COS and associated COMS. It will aid in the uniform measurement and reporting of relevant health outcomes worldwide.

Best Practices for Communicating a Diagnosis of Dementia: Results of a Multi-Stakeholder Modified Delphi Consensus Process.

Many individuals with dementia and their families report not receiving a dementia diagnosis. Previously published standards for delivering a dementia diagnosis are now more than 10 years old and were developed without patient and caregiver input. The objective of this study was to identify best practices for delivering a diagnosis of dementia using existing literature, involvement of diverse stakeholders, and consensus building through a formal modified Delphi approach. We convened a multi-stakeholder working group including a patient, caregivers, Alzheimer's Association staff, and clinicians from diverse backgrounds. The panel used the American Academy of Neurology process for recommendation development, consisting of a half-day workshop and 3 rounds of anonymous modified Delphi voting to achieve consensus. The working group convened from May 2022 through January 2023. The group chose to focus statements on a limited number of best practices that can be applied across clinic types. Seven best practice statements achieved consensus after a maximum of 3 rounds of voting. These included the following: (1) Clinicians must show compassion and empathy when delivering a diagnosis of dementia (level A). During dementia diagnosis disclosure, clinicians should (2) ask regarding diagnosis preferences, (3) instill realistic hope, (4) provide practical strategies, (5) provide education and connections to high-quality resources, (6) connect caregivers to support resources, and (7) provide written summaries of the diagnoses, plan, and relevant resources (each level B). Clinicians need to customize discussion of a dementia diagnosis for individual patients and their caregivers. These 7 best practices provide a diagnosis communication framework that can be implemented across varied clinical settings. Additional strategies, such as using optimal general communication approaches, are also important for dementia diagnosis discussions. Thoughtful application of these best practices is particularly important when caring for individuals from underrepresented communities. Further improving communication regarding dementia diagnoses will require health system changes (e.g., for sufficient time), improved access to specialty dementia care, and clinician training for delivering difficult diagnoses. More research is needed to identify culturally sensitive approaches to discussing dementia diagnoses.

International Consensus Criteria for Pediatric Sepsis and Septic Shock

Sepsis is a leading cause of death among children worldwide. Current pediatric-specific criteria for sepsis were published in 2005 based on expert opinion. In 2016, the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) defined sepsis as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, but it excluded children. To update and evaluate criteria for sepsis and septic shock in children. The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) convened a task force of 35 pediatric experts in critical care, emergency medicine, infectious diseases, general pediatrics, nursing, public health, and neonatology from 6 continents. Using evidence from an international survey, systematic review and meta-analysis, and a new organ dysfunction score developed based on more than 3 million electronic health record encounters from 10 sites on 4 continents, a modified Delphi consensus process was employed to develop criteria. Based on survey data, most pediatric clinicians used sepsis to refer to infection with life-threatening organ dysfunction, which differed from prior pediatric sepsis criteria that used systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, which have poor predictive properties, and included the redundant term, severe sepsis. The SCCM task force recommends that sepsis in children be identified by a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points in children with suspected infection, which indicates potentially life-threatening dysfunction of the respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological systems. Children with a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points had in-hospital mortality of 7.1% in higher-resource settings and 28.5% in lower-resource settings, more than 8 times that of children with suspected infection not meeting these criteria. Mortality was higher in children who had organ dysfunction in at least 1 of 4-respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological-organ systems that was not the primary site of infection. Septic shock was defined as children with sepsis who had cardiovascular dysfunction, indicated by at least 1 cardiovascular point in the Phoenix Sepsis Score, which included severe hypotension for age, blood lactate exceeding 5 mmol/L, or need for vasoactive medication. Children with septic shock had an in-hospital mortality rate of 10.8% and 33.5% in higher- and lower-resource settings, respectively. The Phoenix sepsis criteria for sepsis and septic shock in children were derived and validated by the international SCCM Pediatric Sepsis Definition Task Force using a large international database and survey, systematic review and meta-analysis, and modified Delphi consensus approach. A Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 identified potentially life-threatening organ dysfunction in children younger than 18 years with infection, and its use has the potential to improve clinical care, epidemiological assessment, and research in pediatric sepsis and septic shock around the world.

A high level of scientific evidence is available to guide treatment of primary shoulder stiffness: The SIAGASCOT consensus.

Shoulder stiffness (SS) is a condition characterised by active and passive restricted glenohumeral range of motion, which can occur spontaneously in an idiopathic manner or be associated with a known underlying aetiology. Several treatment options are available and currently no consensus has been obtained on which treatment algorithm represents the best choice for the patient. Herein we present the results of a national consensus on the treatment of primary SS. The project followed the modified Delphi consensus process, involving a steering, a rating and a peer-review group. Sixteen questions were generated and subsequently answered by the steering group after a thorough literature search. A rating group composed by professionals specialised in the diagnosis and treatment of shoulder pathologies rated the question-answer sets according to the scientific evidence and their clinical experience. Recommendations were rated with an average of 8.4 points out of maximum 9 points. None of the 16 answers received a rating of less than 8 and all the answers were considered as appropriate. The majority of responses were assessed as Grade A, signifying a substantial availability of scientific evidence to guide treatment and support recommendations encompassing diagnostics, physiotherapy, electrophysical agents, oral and injective medical therapies, as well as surgical interventions for primary SS. A consensus regarding the conservative and surgical treatment of primary SS could be achieved at a national level. This consensus sets basis for evidence-based clinical practice in the management of primary SS and can serve as a model for similar initiatives and adaptable guidelines in other European countries and potentially on a global scale. Level I.

Priorities for implementation research on diagnosing cancer in primary care: a consensus process

BackgroundThe early detection and diagnosis of cancer to reduce avoidable mortality and morbidity is a challenging task in primary health care. There is a growing evidence base on how to enable earlier cancer diagnosis, but well-recognised gaps and delays exist around the translation of new research findings into routine clinical practice. Implementation research aims to accelerate the uptake of evidence by health care systems and professionals. We aimed to identify priorities for implementation research in early cancer diagnosis in primary care.MethodsWe used a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi consensus process to identify and rank research priorities. We asked primary care physicians, patients and researchers to complete an online survey suggesting priorities for implementation research in cancer detection and diagnosis. We summarised and presented these suggestions to an 11-member consensus panel comprising nine primary care physicians and two patients. Panellists independently rated the importance of suggestions on a 1–9 scale (9 = very high priority; 1 = very low priority) before and after a structured group discussion. We ranked suggestions using median ratings.ResultsWe received a total of 115 suggested priorities for implementation research from 32 survey respondents (including 16 primary care professionals, 11 researchers, and 4 patient and public representatives; 88% of respondents were UK-based). After removing duplicates and ineligible suggestions, we presented 37 suggestions grouped within 17 categories to the consensus panel. Following two rounds of rating, 27 suggestions were highly supported (median rating 7–9). The most highly rated suggestions concerned diagnostic support (e.g., access to imaging) interventions (e.g., professional or patient education), organisation of the delivery of care (e.g., communication within and between teams) and understanding variations in care and outcomes.ConclusionsWe have identified a set of priorities for implementation research on the early diagnosis of cancer, ranked in importance by primary care physicians and patients. We suggest that researchers and research funders consider these in directing further efforts and resources to improve population outcomes.

Instruments to assess post-intensive care syndrome assessment: a scoping review and modified Delphi method study

BackgroundThe assessment of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is challenging due to the numerous types of instruments. We herein attempted to identify and propose recommendations for instruments to assess PICS in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review to identify PICS follow-up studies at and after hospital discharge between 2014 and 2022. Assessment instruments used more than two times were included in the modified Delphi consensus process. A modified Delphi meeting was conducted three times by the PICS committee of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine, and each score was rated as not important (score: 1–3), important, but not critical (4–6), and critical (7–9). We included instruments with ≥ 70% of respondents rating critical and ≤ 15% of respondents rating not important.ResultsIn total, 6972 records were identified in this scoping review, and 754 studies were included in the analysis. After data extraction, 107 PICS assessment instruments were identified. The modified Delphi meeting reached 20 PICS assessment instrument recommendations: (1) in the physical domain: the 6-min walk test, MRC score, and grip strength, (2) in cognition: MoCA, MMSE, and SMQ, (3) in mental health: HADS, IES-R, and PHQ-9, (4) in the activities of daily living: the Barthel Index, IADL, and FIM, (5) in quality of life: SF-36, SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, 3L, and VAS (6), in sleep and pain: PSQI and Brief Pain Inventory, respectively, and (7) in the PICS-family domain: SF-36, HADS, and IES-R.ConclusionBased on a scoping review and the modified Delphi method, 20 PICS assessment instruments are recommended to assess physical, cognitive, mental health, activities of daily living, quality of life, sleep, and pain in ICU survivors and their families.

Redefining Cancer Research Priorities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries in the Post-COVID-19 Global Context: A Modified Delphi Consensus Process.

The post-COVID-19 funding landscape for cancer research globally has become increasingly challenging, particularly in resource-challenged regions (RCRs) lacking strong research ecosystems. We aimed to produce a list of priority areas for cancer research in countries with limited resources, informed by researchers and patients. Cancer experts in lower-resource health care systems (as defined by the World Bank as low- and middle-income countries; N = 151) were contacted to participate in a modified consensus-seeking Delphi survey, comprising two rounds. In round 1, participants (n = 69) rated predetermined areas of potential research priority (ARPs) for importance and suggested missing ARPs. In round 2, the same participants (n = 49) rated an integrated list of predetermined and suggested ARPs from round 1, then undertook a forced choice priority ranking exercise. Composite voting scores (T-scores) were used to rank the ARPs. Importance ratings were summarized descriptively. Findings were discussed with international patient advocacy organization representatives. The top ARP was research into strategies adapting guidelines or treatment strategies in line with available resources (particularly systemic therapy) (T = 83). Others included cancer registries (T = 62); prevention (T = 52); end-of-life care (T = 53); and value-based and affordable care (T = 51). The top COVID-19/cancer ARP was strategies to incorporate what has been learned during the pandemic that can be maintained posteriorly (T = 36). Others included treatment schedule interruption (T = 24); cost-effective reduction of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (T = 19); and pandemic preparedness (T = 18). Areas of strategic priority favored by cancer researchers in RCRs are related to adaptive treatment guidelines; sustainable implementation of cancer registries; prevention strategies; value-based and affordable cancer care; investments in research capacity building; epidemiologic work on local risk factors for cancer; and combatting inequities of prevention and care access.

The International Standard Set of Outcome Measures for the Assessment of Hearing in People with Osteogenesis Imperfecta.

The aim is to recommend a minimum standard set of clinician-reported outcome measures (CROMs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on hearing for people with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI). This project is part of the larger "Key4OI" project initiated by the "Care4BrittleBones foundation" of which the goal is to improve quality of life of people with OI. Key4OI provides a standard set of outcome measures and covers a large set of domains affecting the well-being of people with OI. An international team of experts in OI, comprising specialists in audiological science, medical specialists, and an expert patient representative, used a modified Delphi consensus process to select CROMs and PROMs to evaluate hearing problems in people with OI. In addition, focus groups of people with OI identified key consequences of their hearing loss. These criteria were matched to categories of preselected questionnaires to select a PROM that matched their specific hearing-related concerns best. Consensus on PROMs for adults and CROMs for adults and children was reached. The focus of the CROMs was on specific audiological outcome measures and standardized follow-up. This project resulted in a clear consensus statement for standardization of hearing-related PROMs and CROMs and follow-up management of patients with OI. This standardization of outcome measurements will facilitate comparability of research and easier international cooperation in OI and hearing loss. Furthermore, it can improve standard of care in people with OI and hearing loss by incorporating the recommendations into care pathways.

High quality colonoscopy: using textbook process as a composite quality measure.

BACKGROUND : High quality colonoscopy is fundamental to good patient outcomes. "Textbook outcome" has proven to be a feasible multidimensional measure for quality assurance between surgical centers. In this study, we sought to establish the "textbook process" (TP) as a new composite measure for the optimal colonoscopy process and assessed how frequently TP was attained in clinical practice and the variation in TP between endoscopists. METHODS : To reach consensus on the definition of TP, international expert endoscopists completed a modified Delphi consensus process. The achievement of TP was then applied to clinical practice. Prospectively collected data in two endoscopy services were retrospectively evaluated. Data on colonoscopies performed for symptoms or surveillance between 1 January 2018 and 1 August 2021 were analyzed. RESULTS : The Delphi consensus process was completed by 20 of 27 invited experts (74.1 %). TP was defined as a colonoscopy fulfilling the following items: explicit colonoscopy indication; successful cecal intubation; adequate bowel preparation; adequate withdrawal time; acceptable patient comfort score; provision of post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations in line with guidelines; and the absence of the use of reversal agents, early adverse events, readmission, and mortality. In the two endoscopy services studied, TP was achieved in 5962/8227 colonoscopies (72.5 %). Of 48 endoscopists performing colonoscopy, attainment of TP varied significantly, ranging per endoscopist from 41.0 % to 89.1 %. CONCLUSION : This study proposes a new composite measure for colonoscopy, namely "textbook process." TP gives a comprehensive summary of performance and demonstrates significant variation between endoscopists, illustrating the potential benefit of TP as a measure in future quality assessment programs.

How does facilitation in healthcare work? Using mechanism mapping to illuminate the black box of a meta-implementation strategy

BackgroundHealthcare facilitation, an implementation strategy designed to improve the uptake of effective clinical innovations in routine practice, has produced promising yet mixed results in randomized implementation trials and has not been fully researched across different contexts.ObjectiveUsing mechanism mapping, which applies directed acyclic graphs that decompose an effect of interest into hypothesized causal steps and mechanisms, we propose a more concrete description of how healthcare facilitation works to inform its further study as a meta-implementation strategy.MethodsUsing a modified Delphi consensus process, co-authors developed the mechanistic map based on a three-step process. First, they developed an initial logic model by collectively reviewing the literature and identifying the most relevant studies of healthcare facilitation components and mechanisms to date. Second, they applied the logic model to write vignettes describing how facilitation worked (or did not) based on recent empirical trials that were selected via consensus for inclusion and diversity in contextual settings (US, international sites). Finally, the mechanistic map was created based on the collective findings from the vignettes.FindingsTheory-based healthcare facilitation components informing the mechanistic map included staff engagement, role clarification, coalition-building through peer experiences and identifying champions, capacity-building through problem solving barriers, and organizational ownership of the implementation process. Across the vignettes, engagement of leaders and practitioners led to increased socialization of the facilitator’s role in the organization. This in turn led to clarifying of roles and responsibilities among practitioners and identifying peer experiences led to increased coherence and sense-making of the value of adopting effective innovations. Increased trust develops across leadership and practitioners through expanded capacity in adoption of the effective innovation by identifying opportunities that mitigated barriers to practice change. Finally, these mechanisms led to eventual normalization and ownership of the effective innovation and healthcare facilitation process.ImpactMapping methodology provides a novel perspective of mechanisms of healthcare facilitation, notably how sensemaking, trust, and normalization contribute to quality improvement. This method may also enable more efficient and impactful hypothesis-testing and application of complex implementation strategies, with high relevance for lower-resourced settings, to inform effective innovation uptake.

Multiorganizational consensus to define guiding principles for perioperative pain management in patients with chronic pain, preoperative opioid tolerance, or substance use disorder

Significant knowledge gaps exist in the perioperative pain management of patients with a history of chronic pain, substance use disorder, and/or opioid tolerance as highlighted in the US Health and...

Defining entrustable professional activities for first year anesthesiology residents: A Delphi study

IntroductionThe use of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) as a basis for assessment may bridge the gap between the theory of competency-based education and clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate EPAs for United States (US) first-year clinical anesthesia (CA-1) residents for anesthesiology residency programs to use as the basis for curriculum development and workplace assessment. MethodsFrom a list of EPAs abstracted from the literature, an expert panel through a modified Delphi consensus process established EPAs for the CA1 curriculum. ResultsThe final list of EPAs after group consensus had 28 EPAs, with 14 (50%) considered to be applicable to the CA-1 year. An 80% consensus rate was used to accept or reject the final list. ConclusionThis study applied a construct validity lens to EPA development providing assurance that the EPAs adopted are appropriate for use in workplace-based assessment and entrustment decision-making.

International consensus on the non-pharmacological and non-surgical management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures.

This international consensus process established multidisciplinary biopsychosocial recommendations on pain, nutrition, safe movement, and exercise for individuals with acute and chronic vertebral fractures. These recommendations will guide clinical practice and inform interventions for future research. To establish international consensus on recommendations for the non-pharmacological and non-surgical management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures. We adopted a five-step modified Delphi consensus process: (1) literature search and content analysis, (2) creation of the survey, (3) selection of the expert panel, (4) first round of the rating process, and (5) second round of the rating process. The first round included 49 statements and eight open-ended questions; the second round included 30 statements. Panelists were asked to rate their agreement with each of the statements using a 9-point scale, with the option to provide further comments. Consensus for each statement was determined by counting the number of panelists whose rating was outside the 3-point region containing the median. We invited 76 people with degree in medicine, physiotherapy, kinesiology, and experience in the management of osteoporotic vertebral; 31 (41%) and 27 (36%) experts agreed to participate to the first and the second round, respectively. The mean percentage agreement after the first and second rounds was 76.6% ± 16.0% and 90.7% ± 6.5%, respectively. We established consensus on recommendations on pain, early satiety, weight loss, bracing, safe movement, and exercise for individuals with acute and chronic vertebral fractures. Our international consensus provides multidisciplinary biopsychosocial recommendations to guide the management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures and inform interventions for future research.

Measurement that matters: A systematic review and modified Delphi of multidisciplinary colorectal cancer quality indicators.

To develop a priority set of quality indicators (QIs) for use by colorectal cancer (CRC) multidisciplinary teams (MDTs). The review search strategy was executed in four databases from 2009-August 2019. Two reviewers screened abstracts/manuscripts. Candidate QIs and characteristics were extracted using a tailored abstraction tool and assessed for scientific soundness. To prioritize candidate indicators, a modified Delphi consensus process was conducted. Consensus was sought over two rounds; (1) multidisciplinary expert workshops to identify relevance to Australian CRC MDTs, and (2) an online survey to prioritize QIs by clinical importance. A total of 93 unique QIs were extracted from 118 studies and categorized into domains of care within the CRC patient pathway. Approximately half the QIs involved more than one discipline (52.7%). One-third of QIs related to surgery of primary CRC (31.2%). QIs on supportive care (6%) and neoadjuvant therapy (6%) were limited. In the Delphi Round 1, workshop participants (n=12) assessed 93 QIs and produced consensus on retaining 49 QIs including six new QIs. In Round 2, survey participants (n=44) rated QIs and prioritized a final 26 QIs across all domains of care and disciplines with a concordance level>80%. Participants represented all MDT disciplines, predominantly surgical (32%), radiation (23%) and medical (20%) oncology, and nursing (18%), across six Australian states, with an even spread of experience level. This study identified a large number of existing CRC QIs and prioritized the most clinically relevant QIs for use by Australian MDTs to measure and monitor their performance.

International consensus recommendations for the optimal prioritisation and distribution of surgical services in low-income and middle-income countries: a modified Delphi process

ObjectivesTo develop consensus statements regarding the regional-level or district-level distribution of surgical services in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) and prioritisation of service scale-up.DesignThis work was conducted using a modified...