Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making

Care Priorities for Individuals with Lower Extremity Amputations: A Patient Delphi Study

OBJECTIVE

To gather preliminary evidence on short- and long-term care priorities for people with lower extremity amputations.

DESIGN

A three-round modified Delphi study using semi-structured interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

A convenience sample of 20 adult participants who had undergone lower extremity amputations at a tertiary public hospital.

MAIN MEASURE

Consensus on each care priority was defined a priori as an agreement of more than 50%. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand the rationales for endorsing the care priorities.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 24 short-term care priorities and 12 long-term care priorities in the biomedical, practical and psychological and spiritual domains. The rationales for endorsing each of the care priorities generated three themes: preparedness; mental health, psychological and spiritual well-being; and participating in life, with respect and dignity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight the substantial need to improve patient access to education and planning support prior to undergoing limb amputation, and optimising post-amputation rehabilitation programmes, enabling people with amputations to participate in meaningful life roles that provide them with purpose, dignity, and self-respect. The knowledge of care priorities revealed in this study may promote effective patient-centred care and improve clinical outcomes.

Co-development of a transitions in care bundle for patient transitions from the intensive care unit: a mixed-methods analysis of a stakeholder consensus meeting

Background

Intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing transitions in care are at increased risk of adverse events and gaps in medical care. We evaluated existing patient- and family-centered transitions in care tools and identified facilitators, barriers, and implementation considerations for the application of a transitions in care bundle in critically ill adults (i.e., a collection of evidence-based patient- and family-centred tools to improve outcomes during and after transitions from the intensive care unit [ICU] to hospital ward or community).

Methods

We conducted a concurrent mixed methods (quan + QUAL) study, including stakeholders with experience in ICU transitions in care (i.e., patient/family partners, researchers, decision-makers, providers, and other knowledge-users). First, participants scored existing transitions in care tools using the modified Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) framework. Transitions in care tools were discussed by stakeholders and either accepted, accepted with modifications, or rejected if consensus was achieved (≥70% agreement). We summarized quantitative results using frequencies and medians. Second, we conducted a qualitative analysis of participant discussions using grounded theory principles to elicit factors influencing AGREE-II scores, and to identify barriers, facilitators, and implementation considerations for the application of a transitions in care bundle.

Results

Twenty-nine stakeholders attended. Of 18 transitions in care tools evaluated, seven (39%) tools were accepted with modifications, one (6%) tool was rejected, and consensus was not reached for ten (55%) tools. Qualitative analysis found that participants’ AGREE-II rankings were influenced by: 1) language (e.g., inclusive, balance of jargon and lay language); 2) if the tool was comprehensive (i.e., could stand alone); 3) if the tool could be individualized for each patient; 4) impact to clinical workflow; and 5) how the tool was presented (e.g., brochure, video). Participants discussed implementation considerations for a patient- and family-centered transitions in care bundle: 1) delivery (e.g., tool format and timing); 2) continuity (e.g., follow-up after ICU discharge); and 3) continuous evaluation and improvement (e.g., frequency of tool use). Participants discussed existing facilitators (e.g., collaboration and co-design) and barriers (e.g., health system capacity) that would impact application of a transitions in care bundle.

Conclusions

Findings will inform future research to develop a transitions in care bundle for transitions from the ICU, co-designed with patients, families, providers, researchers, decision-makers, and knowledge-users.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07392-2.

Knowledge management in the classroom using Mendeley technology

Research in higher education institutions is present in all courses, and academic instruction in research methodology is vital, with educational technologies being an essential component of this process. With the Covid-19 pandemic, there were changes in teaching, learning, and in performing scientific research in undergraduate courses. Among the technologies, the Mendeley reference management tool has become increasingly helpful in these contexts. Therefore, this manuscript is an account of workshop experiences for the use of the Mendeley tool in the teaching of Research Methodology and Scientific Methodology offered in the distance education modality in undergraduate courses at the Universidade do Contestado, Brazil. After basic instruction on Mendeley, students participating in the workshops were guided to apply the tool using Bardin's content analysis technique. This technique is usually laborious and seldom involved in literature reviews by undergraduate students; Mendeley technology makes it more accessible. From experiences with the 2020 and 2021 workshops, during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is suggested that the content analysis method combined with the Mendeley technology can help students present better literature reviews, especially for final graduation projects such as course completion monographs.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

Improving ICU transitional care by combining quality management and nursing science – two scientific fields meet in a systematic literature review

Purpose

The purpose of this literature review was to explore to what extent quality management (QM) and nursing science offer complementary perspectives to provide better quality care, by looking at QM core concepts and tools.

Design/methodology/approach

A systematic literature review was conducted. Papers published in academic journals between January 2013 and December 2019 were included. A deductive content analysis was chosen using QM core values as an analytical framework.

Findings

The results showed that QM core values, methodologies and tools were found in the reviewed articles about intensive care unit (ICU) transitional care. The results indicated that core values in QM and the core competencies within nursing science in ICU transitional care are mutually dependent upon each other and exist as a whole. ICU transitional care is, however, a complex interpersonal process, characterized by differences in organizational cultures and core values and involving multidisciplinary teams that collaborate across hospital units. The QM core value that was least observed was committed leadership.

Research limitations/implications

Combining QM and nursing science can contribute to a deeper understanding of how to improve the ICU transitional care process by bringing complementary perspectives.

Practical implications

The included articles portray how QM is applied in ICU transitional care. Implications for future research focus on enhancing the understanding of how QM and nursing science can bring complementary perspectives in order to improve ICU transitional care and how QM values, methodologies and tools can be used in ICU transitional care. Committed leadership and team collaboration in ICU transitional care are areas that call for further research.

Originality/value

The findings contribute to the body of literature by providing important insights in terms of how QM core values, methodologies and tools are present in research about ICU transitional care and how the two research subjects, namely, QM and nursing science, bring complementary perspectives.

Improving the quality of person-centred healthcare from the patient perspective: development of person-centred quality indicators

IMPORTANCE

International efforts are being made towards a person-centred care (PCC) model, but there are currently no standardised mechanisms to measure and monitor PCC at a healthcare system level. The use of metrics to measure PCC can help to drive the changes needed to improve the quality of healthcare that is person centred.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate person-centred care quality indicators (PC-QIs) measuring PCC at a healthcare system level through a synthesis of the evidence and a person-centred consensus approach to ensure the PC-QIs reflect what matters most to people in their care.

METHODS

Existing indicators were first identified through a scoping review of the literature and an international environmental scan. Focus group discussions with diverse patients and caregivers and interviews with clinicians and experts in quality improvement allowed us to identify gaps in current measurement of PCC and inform the development of new PC-QIs. A set of identified and newly developed PC-QIs were subsequently refined by Delphi consensus process using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. The international consensus panel consisted of patients, family members, community representatives, clinicians, researchers and healthcare quality experts.

RESULTS

From an initial 39 unique evidence-based PC-QIs identified and developed, the consensus process yielded 26 final PC-QIs. These included 7 related to structure, 16 related to process, 2 related to outcome and 1 overall global PC-QI.

CONCLUSIONS

The final 26 evidence-based and person-informed PC-QIs can be used to measure and evaluate quality incorporating patient perspectives, empowering jurisdictions to monitor healthcare system performance and evaluate policy and practice related to PCC.

A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of family-partnered delirium prevention, detection, and management in critically ill adults: the ACTIVATE study

Background

Delirium is very common in critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and results in negative long-term outcomes. Family members are also at risk of long-term complications, including depression and anxiety. Family members are frequently at the bedside and want to be engaged; they know the patient best and may notice subtle changes prior to the care team. By engaging family members in delirium care, we may be able to improve both patient and family outcomes by identifying delirium sooner and capacitating family members in care.

Methods

The primary aim of this study is to determine the effect of family-administered delirium prevention, detection, and management in critically ill patients on family member symptoms of depression and anxiety, compared to usual care. One-hundred and ninety-eight patient-family dyads will be recruited from four medical-surgical ICUs in Calgary, Canada. Dyads will be randomized 1:1 to the intervention or control group. The intervention consists of family-partnered delirium prevention, detection, and management, while the control group will receive usual care. Delirium, depression, and anxiety will be measured using validated tools, and participants will be followed for 1- and 3-months post-ICU discharge. All analyses will be intention-to-treat and adjusted for pre-identified covariates. Ethical approval has been granted by the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board (REB19–1000) and the trial registered. The protocol adheres to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist.

Discussion

Critically ill patients are frequently unable to participate in their own care, and partnering with their family members is particularly important for improving experiences and outcomes of care for both patients and families.

Trial registration

Registered September 23, 2019 on Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04099472.

It takes two to tango: carers' reflections on their participation and the participation of people with dementia in the James Lind Alliance process

Background

Worldwide, patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research has grown steadily in recent decades. The James Lind Alliance (JLA) is one approach to PPI that brings patients, carers and clinicians together to identify priorities for future research in a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP). Our study aim was to describe the reflections of informal carers of people with dementia on the possibility of participating in the JLA’s PSP process, for both themselves and the recipients of their care. In addition, we wanted to explore barriers to and facilitators of their participation.

Methods

We conducted four focus groups with 36 carers of people with dementia. Thematic analysis was applied to analyse the data.

Results

An overarching theme emerged from the participants’ reflections: “Creating empowering teams where all voices are heard”. The overarching theme incorporates the participants’ suggestions about the importance of equivalence in power, mutual agreement with and understanding of the goals, adequate support, openness about each partner’s tasks and the bonds needed between the partners to sustain the enterprise, and expectations of positive outcomes. From the overarching theme, two main themes emerged: “Interaction of human factors, the PSP process and the environment” and “The power of position and knowledge”. The overall results indicated that carers are willing to participate in PSP processes and that they thought it important for people with dementia to participate in PSP processes as well, even if some might need extra support to do so. The carers also identified the need for research topics that influence their everyday lives, policy development and healthcare services.

Conclusions

Both carers and the people with dementia for whom they care are able to contribute to the PSP process when given sufficient support. The involvement of these groups is important for setting healthcare research agendas, developing research projects that increase awareness and knowledge about their circumstances and improving health professionals’, researchers’ and policymakers’ understanding of and insight into their unique situations.

Public involvement in designing a study on patient-witnessed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in hospital

The aim of this paper is to report the findings of the consultation rounds with former patients and health care professionals to inform the design of a qualitative study. We aimed to understand stakeholders' views regarding the relevance of a proposed study looking at the impact of patients witnessing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on other patients in hospital, the appropriateness of the proposed methodology and ethical aspects. We conducted an online survey (n = 22) and telephone interviews (n = 4) with former patients linked to the British Heart Foundation charity and a focus group (n = 15) with hospital health care professionals involved in cardiopulmonary resuscitation activities. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. The consultation rounds provided valuable advice on three major themes: conceptual aspects, methodological aspects and practical suggestions. The conceptual aspects were related to the relevance of the proposed study, the emotional impact for participating patients and how the social interaction among patients could influence the witnessing experience. Methodological advice included recruitment strategies and data collection methods such as the use of individual and focus group interviews, the timeframe of interviews with patients and the topics of the interview guides. In the third theme, practical suggestions were provided, such as strategies to advertise the study, improving the public's and participants' engagement throughout the study process and disseminating the findings. Overall, the study proposed in this consultation was considered relevant and worthy by patients and health care professionals to raise awareness and generate new evidence on an unconsidered aspect of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and of patients' hospital experience. These stakeholders' consultation rounds constituted a valuable exercise to design high-quality research based on a shared vision among researchers, service users and clinicians. They also provided pragmatic advice to inform critical care practice to support patients witnessing cardiopulmonary resuscitation in hospital.

Association between strained ICU capacity and healthcare costs in Canada: A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Intensive care is resource intensive, with costs representing a substantial quantity of total hospitalization costs. Strained ICU capacity compromises care quality and adversely impacts outcomes; however, the association between strain and healthcare costs has not been explored.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Population-based cohort study performed in 17 adult ICUs in Alberta, Canada. Data were captured on hospitalizations, ambulatory care, physician services and drug dispenses occurring 1-year before and 1-year after index ICU admission. Strain was defined as occupancy ≥90%; with 21 additional definitions evaluated. Patients were categorized as strain and non-strain admissions. Costs attributable to strain, were calculated as difference-in-difference costs using propensity-score matching.

RESULTS

30,557 patients were included (strain: 11,830 [38.7%]; non-strain: 18,727 [61.3%]). At 1-year, strain admissions had adjusted-incremental per-patient cost of CA$9406 (95%CI, $5654-13,157) compared to non-strain admissions, due to hospitalization costs (CA$7930; 95%CI, $4553-11,307) and physician claims (CA$844; 95%CI, $430-1259). This equated to CA$111.3 million (95%CI, $66.9-155.6 million) in excess attributable costs. Strain portended longer hospitalization (3.3 days; 95%CI, 1.1-5.5); and more ambulatory visits (1.0; 95%CI, 0.1-2.0) and physician claims (9.5; 95%CI, 6.2-12.7). Incremental costs were robust across strain definitions.

CONCLUSIONS

Admissions to ICUs experiencing strain incur incremental costs, attributed to longer hospitalization and physician services.

A multicentre controlled pre-post trial of an implementation science intervention to improve venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in critically ill patients

PURPOSE

To test whether a multicomponent intervention would increase the use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients and change patient outcomes and healthcare utilization.

METHODS

Controlled pre-post trial of 12,342 adults admitted to 11 ICUs (five intervention, six control) May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2017 with no contraindication to pharmacological prophylaxis and an ICU stay longer than 24 h. Models were developed to examine temporal changes in ICU VTE prophylaxis (primary outcome), VTE, major bleeding, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), death and hospital costs.

RESULTS

The use of LMWH increased from 45.9% to 78.3% of patient days in the intervention group and from 37.9% to 53.3% in the control group, an absolute increase difference of 17.0% (32.4% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.001). Changes in the administration of UFH were inversely related to those of LMWH. There were no significant differences in the adjusted odds of VTE (ratio of odds ratios [rOR] 1.13, 95% CI 0.51-2.46) or major bleeding (rOR 1.22, 95% CI 0.97-1.54) post-implementation of the intervention (compared to pre-implementation) between the intervention group and the control group. HIT was uncommon in both groups (n = 20 patients). There were no significant changes for ICU and hospital mortality, length of stay and costs. Results were similar when stratified according to reason for ICU admission, patient weight and kidney function.

CONCLUSIONS

A multicomponent intervention changed practice, but not clinical and economic outcomes. The benefit of implementing LMWH for VTE prophylaxis under real-world conditions is uncertain.

Do patient-reported outcome measures for SAH include patient, family, and caregiver priorities? A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically describe literature that identified patient/family/caregiver priorities for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH)-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), developed novel SAH PROMs by incorporating patient/family/caregiver perspectives, or involved patient/family/caregiver perspectives in evaluating existing SAH PROMs.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review using Embase and Ovid MEDLINE from inception to February 6, 2018. Study eligibility and data extraction was performed independently and in duplicate. For each eligible citation, we abstracted information about study population, design, type of patient involvement, and outcome measures. We planned a descriptive summary of all included studies.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 4,961 citations, of which 15 met our eligibility criteria. Four of these included duplicate data, so our final sample consisted of 12 articles. There were 879 patients with SAH and 241 carers from the 11/12 articles that reported these data. One additional study involved 70 individuals but did not specify the number of carers or patients. We did not find any studies where SAH survivors or their families were directly involved in the full continuum of PROM outcome conceptualization from development to evaluation. We found 41 measures identified by patients with SAH. We identified only 2 PROMs developed with patients and only one that was a post hoc evaluation by patients. These 3 PROMs are subarachnoid hemorrhage outcome tool, Wessex Patient Carer Questionnaire, and Functional Status Examination, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We identified 3 PROMs that have involved patients in some way, but the extent to which they reflect patient priorities remains unclear. More work is needed to ensure SAH research is not overlooking outcomes that are important to patients.

Administrator Perspectives on ICU-to-Ward Transfers and Content Contained in Existing Transfer Tools: a Cross-sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

The transfer of critically ill patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) to hospital ward is challenging. Shortcomings in the delivery of care for patients transferred from the ICU have been associated with higher healthcare costs and poor satisfaction with care. Little is known about how hospital ward providers, who accept care of these patients, perceive current transfer practices nor which aspects of transfer they perceive as needing improvement.

OBJECTIVE

To compare ICU and ward administrator perspectives regarding ICU-to-ward transfer practices and evaluate the content of transfer tools.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey design.

PARTICIPANTS

We administered a survey to 128 medical and/or surgical ICU and 256 ward administrators to obtain institutional perspectives on ICU transfer practices. We performed qualitative content analysis on ICU transfer tools received from respondents.

KEY RESULTS

In total, 108 (77%) ICU and 160 (63%) ward administrators responded to the survey. The ICU attending physician was reported to be "primarily responsible" for the safety (93% vs. 91%; p = 0.515) of patient transfers. ICU administrators more commonly perceived discharge summaries to be routinely included in patient transfers than ward administrators (81% vs. 60%; p = 0.006). Both groups identified information provided to patients/families, patient/family participation during transfer, and ICU-ward collaboration as opportunities for improvement. A minority of hospitals used ICU-to-ward transfer tools (11%) of which most (n = 21 unique) were designed to communicate patient information between providers (71%) and comprised six categories of information: demographics, patient clinical course, corrective aids, mobility at discharge, review of systems, and documentation of transfer procedures.

CONCLUSION

ICU and ward administrators have similar perspectives of transfer practices and identified patient/family engagement and communication as priorities for improvement. Key information categories exist.

Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making

Background

Providers have traditionally established priorities for quality improvement; however, patients and their family members have recently become involved in priority setting. Little is known about how to reconcile priorities of different stakeholder groups into a single prioritized list that is actionable for organizations.

Objective

To describe the decision‐making process for establishing consensus used by a diverse panel of stakeholders to reconcile two sets of quality improvement priorities (provider/decision maker priorities n=9; patient/family priorities n=19) into a single prioritized list.

Design

We employed a modified Delphi process with a diverse group of panellists to reconcile priorities for improving care of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Proceedings were audio‐recorded, transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis to explore the decision‐making process for establishing consensus.

Setting and participants

Nine panellists including three providers, three decision makers and three family members of previously critically ill patients.

Results

Panellists rated and revised 28 priorities over three rounds of review and reached consensus on the “Top 5” priorities for quality improvement: transition of patient care from ICU to hospital ward; family presence and effective communication; delirium screening and management; early mobilization; and transition of patient care between ICU providers. Four themes were identified as important for establishing consensus: storytelling (sharing personal experiences), amalgamating priorities (negotiating priority scope), considering evaluation criteria and having a priority champion.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates the feasibility of incorporating families of patients into a multistakeholder prioritization exercise. The approach described can be used to guide consensus building and reconcile priorities of diverse stakeholder groups.