An experimental study of determinants of the extent of disagreement within clinical guideline development groups

Priorities for enhancing nurses' and social workers' competence and confidence in helping families support dependent children through parental death. A classic-Delphi survey

BACKGROUND

Annually, approximately five per cent of dependent children - aged under eighteen years - in the United Kingdom (UK), experience parental death. Nurses and social workers caring for parents with life-limiting illnesses, including cancer, help families support their children. However, these professionals have been found to lack confidence and competence in fulfilling this role.

METHODS

We conducted three rounds of a classic-Delphi survey to identify and measure a panel of topic experts' consensus on the priorities and issues for nurses and social workers when supporting families and children through parental death. The Delphi survey was conducted with a panel of UK topic experts (n=43) including lead health and social care professionals (n=30), parents bereaved of a partner whilst parenting dependent children (n=6), academics (n=4) and bereaved young adults (n=3).

RESULTS

Ninety per cent (n=18/20) of the issues for nurses and social workers and all (7/7) of the priorities rated and ordered in the survey achieved consensus. Key priorities were 1) training in opening conversations with families about dependent children, 2) training and support for nurses and social workers to manage their own and others' emotions arising from conversations with parents about children's needs regarding parental death, and 3) increasing nurses' and social workers' knowledge of sources of information to support families before the death of a parent.

CONCLUSION

We identified priorities for UK nurses and social workers. Further research is needed to identify which of these nurses and social workers would benefit most from support, and how any resultant interventions could enhance confidence and competence in helping families to support children through parental death.

Family-Centered Early Intervention Deaf/Hard of Hearing (FCEI-DHH): Methods

This is the fourth article in a series of eight that comprise a special issue on family-centered early intervention (FCEI) for children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) and their families, FCEI-DHH. This article describes the co-production team and the consensus review method used to direct the creation of the 10 Principles described in this special issue. Co-production is increasingly being used to produce evidence that is useful, usable, and used. A draft set of 10 Principles for FCEI-DHH and associated Tables of recommended behaviors were developed using the knowledge creation process. Principles were refined through two rounds of eDelphi review. Results for each round were analyzed using measures of overall group agreement and measures that indicated the extent to which the group members agreed with each other. After Round 2, with strong agreement and low to moderate variation in extent of agreement, consensus was obtained for the 10 Principles for FCEI-DHH presented in this special issue. This work can be used to enhance evolution of FCEI-DHH program/services and systems world-wide and adds to knowledge in improvement science.

Diabetes Capabilities for the Healthcare Workforce Identified via a 3-Staged Modified Delphi Technique

Consumers access health professionals with varying levels of diabetes-specific knowledge and training, often resulting in conflicting advice. Conflicting health messages lead to consumer disengagement. The study aimed to identify capabilities required by health professionals to deliver diabetes education and care to develop a national consensus capability-based framework to guide their training. A 3-staged modified Delphi technique was used to gain agreement from a purposefully recruited panel of Australian diabetes experts from various disciplines and work settings. The Delphi technique consisted of (Stage I) a semi-structured consultation group and pre-Delphi pilot, (Stage II) a 2-phased online Delphi survey, and (Stage III) a semi-structured focus group and appraisal by health professional regulatory and training organisations. Descriptive statistics and central tendency measures calculated determined quantitative data characteristics and consensus. Content analysis using emergent coding was used for qualitative content. Eighty-four diabetes experts were recruited from nursing and midwifery (n = 60 [71%]), allied health (n = 17 [20%]), and pharmacy (n = 7 [9%]) disciplines. Participant responses identified 7 health professional practice levels requiring differences in diabetes training, 9 capability areas to support care, and 2 to 16 statements attained consensus for each capability-259 in total. Additionally, workforce solutions were identified to expand capacity for diabetes care. The rigorous consultation process led to the design and validation of a Capability Framework for Diabetes Care that addresses workforce enablers identified by the Australian National Diabetes Strategy. It recognises diversity, creating shared understandings of diabetes across health professional disciplines. The findings will inform diabetes policy, practice, education, and research.

Assessing the process and outcome of the development of practice guidelines and recommendations: PANELVIEW instrument development

BACKGROUND

Guideline recommendations may be affected by flaws in the process, inappropriate panel member selection or conduct, conflicts of interest and other factors. To our knowledge, no validated tool exists to evaluate guideline development from the perspective of those directly involved in the process. Our objective was to develop and validate a universal tool, the PANELVIEW instrument, to assess guideline processes, methods and outcomes from the perspective of the participating guideline panellists and group members.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search and surveys of guideline groups (identified through contacting international organizations and convenience sampling of working panels) to inform item generation. Subsequent groups of guideline methodologists and panellists reviewed items for face validity and missing items. We used surveys, interviews and expert review for item reduction and phrasing. For reliability assessment and feedback, we tested the PANELVIEW tool in 8 international guideline groups.

RESULTS

We surveyed 62 members from 13 guideline panels, contacted 19 organizations and reviewed 20 source documents to generate items. Fifty-three additional key informants provided feedback about phrasing of the items and response options. We reduced the number of items from 95 to 34 across domains that included administration, training, conflict of interest, group dynamics, chairing, evidence synthesis, formulating recommendations and publication. The tool takes about 10 minutes to complete and showed acceptable measurement properties.

INTERPRETATION

The PANELVIEW instrument fills a gap by enabling guideline organizations to involve clinicians, patients and other participants in evaluating their guideline processes. The tool can inform quality improvement of existing or new guideline programs, focusing on insight into and transparency of the guideline development process, methods and outcomes.

An Investigation of Healthcare Professionals' Motivation in Public and Mission Hospitals in Meru County, Kenya

Strengthening health systems in developing countries such as Kenya is required to achieve the third United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal of health for all, at all ages. However, Kenya is experiencing a “brain drain” and a critical shortage of healthcare professionals. There is a need to identify the factors that motivate healthcare workers to work in the health sector in rural and marginalized areas. This cross-sectional study aims to investigate the factors associated with the level and types of motivation among healthcare professionals in public and mission hospitals in Meru county, Kenya. Data were collected from 24 public and mission hospitals using a self-administered structured questionnaire. A total of 553 healthcare professionals participated in this study; 78.48% from public hospitals and 21.52% from mission hospitals. Hospital ownership was statistically nonsignificant in healthcare professionals’ overall motivation (p > 0.05). The results showed that sociodemographic and work-environment factors explained 29.95% of the variation in overall motivation scores among participants. Findings indicate there are more similarities than disparities among healthcare professionals’ motivation factors, regardless of hospital ownership; therefore, motivation strategies should be developed and applied in both public and private not-for-profit hospitals to ensure an effective healthcare workforce and strengthen healthcare systems in Kenya.

International consensus on pressure injury preventative interventions by risk level for critically ill patients: A modified Delphi study

The aim of this modified Delphi study was to determine a minimum pressure injury preventative intervention set for implementation relative to critically ill patients' risk level. Preventative interventions were identified via systematic review, risk levels categorised by an intensive-care-specific risk-assessment-scale (COMHON Index), and panel members (n = 67) identified through an international critical care nursing body. Round 1: panel members were asked to rate implementation of 12 interventions according to risk level (low, moderate, high). Round 2: interventions were rated for use at the risk level which received greatest round 1 support. Round 3: interventions not yet achieving consensus were again rated, and discarded where consensus was not reached. Consensus indicated all patients should receive: risk assessment within 2-hours of admission; 8-hourly risk reassessment; and use of disposable incontinence pads. Additionally, moderate- and high-risk patients should receive: a reactive mattress support surface and a heel off-loading device. High-risk patients should also receive: nutritional supplements if eating orally; preventative dressings (sacral, heel, trochanteric); an active mattress support surface; and a pressure-redistributing cushion for sitting. Repositioning is required at least 4-hourly for low-risk, and 2-hourly for moderate- and high-risk patients. Rigorous application of the intervention set has the potential to decrease pressure injuries in intensive care.

Methods for public health economic evaluation: A Delphi survey of decision makers in English and Welsh local government

Standard reference case methods recommended for health technology appraisals do not translate well to a public health setting. This paper reports on a Delphi survey designed to elicit views of public health decision makers in England and Wales, about different methodological elements of economic evaluation. This is important as methods should align with the objective function of decision makers. The Delphi survey comprised two rounds, with round 1 allowing open-ended recommendations in addition to 5-point Likert scale responses. The final survey comprised 36 questions, and levels and strength of agreement were assessed using median values and mean absolute deviation of the median. The Delphi panel (n = 66) achieved high levels of agreement for costs, health, well-being, and productivity impact to be important elements within an economic evaluation. The panel agreed that evaluations should be relevant to the local context and include costs and consequences over a lifetime horizon. There was a call for the transparent reporting of costs and effects for different population subgroups, and for different sectors. Overall, the panel revealed a preference for a flexible approach, understanding that economic evidence fits within a dynamic process of decision making. These results provide empirical evidence to inform guidelines for public health economic evaluation.

Quality indicators for ambulatory care for older adults with diabetes and comorbid conditions: A Delphi study

Background

An increasing number of people are living with multiple chronic conditions and it is unclear which quality indicators should be used to guide care for this population.

Objective

To critically appraise and select the most appropriate set of quality indicators for ambulatory care for older adults with five selected disease combinations.

Methods

A two-round web-based Delphi process was used to critically appraise and select quality of care indicators for older adults with diabetes and comorbidities. A fifteen-member Canadian expert panel with broad geographical and clinical representation participated in this study. The panel evaluated process indicators for meaningfulness, potential for improvements in clinical practice, and overall value of inclusion, while outcome indicators were evaluated for importance, modifiability and overall value of inclusion. A 70% agreement threshold was required for high consensus, and 60–69% for moderate consensus as measured on a 5-point Likert type scale.

Results

Twenty high-consensus and nineteen medium-consensus process and outcome indicators were selected for assessing care for older adults with selected disease combinations, including 1) concordant (conditions with a common management plan), 2) discordant (conditions with unrelated management plans), and 3) both types. Panelists reached rapid consensus on quality indicators for care for older adults with concordant comorbid conditions, but not for those with discordant conditions. All selected indicators assess clinical aspects of care. The feedback from the panelists emphasized the importance of developing indicators related to patient-centred aspects of care, including patient self-management, education, patient-physician relationships, and patient’s preferences.

Conclusions

The selected quality indicators are not intended to provide a comprehensive tool set for measuring quality of care for older adults with selected disease combinations. The recommended indicators address clinical aspects of care and can be used as a starting point for ambulatory care settings and development of additional quality indicators.

Evaluation of upper extremity neurorehabilitation using technology: a European Delphi consensus study within the EU COST Action Network on Robotics for Neurorehabilitation

BACKGROUND

The need for cost-effective neurorehabilitation is driving investment into technologies for patient assessment and treatment. Translation of these technologies into clinical practice is limited by a paucity of evidence for cost-effectiveness. Methodological issues, including lack of agreement on assessment methods, limit the value of meta-analyses of trials. In this paper we report the consensus reached on assessment protocols and outcome measures for evaluation of the upper extremity in neurorehabilitation using technology. The outcomes of this research will be part of the development of European guidelines.

METHODS

A rigorous, systematic and comprehensive modified Delphi study incorporated questions and statements generation, design and piloting of consensus questionnaire and five consensus experts groups consisting of clinicians, clinical researchers, non-clinical researchers, and engineers, all with working experience of neurological assessments or technologies. For data analysis, two major groups were created: i) clinicians (e.g., practicing therapists and medical doctors) and ii) researchers (clinical and non-clinical researchers (e.g. movement scientists, technology developers and engineers).

RESULTS

Fifteen questions or statements were identified during an initial ideas generation round, following which the questionnaire was designed and piloted. Subsequently, questions and statements went through five consensus rounds over 20 months in four European countries. Two hundred eight participants: 60 clinicians (29 %), 35 clinical researchers (17 %), 77 non-clinical researchers (37 %) and 35 engineers (17 %) contributed. At each round questions and statements were added and others removed. Consensus (≥69 %) was obtained for 22 statements on i) the perceived importance of recommendations; ii) the purpose of measurement; iii) use of a minimum set of measures; iv) minimum number, timing and duration of assessments; v) use of technology-generated assessments and the restriction of clinical assessments to validated outcome measures except in certain circumstances for research.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus was reached by a large international multidisciplinary expert panel on measures and protocols for assessment of the upper limb in research and clinical practice. Our results will inform the development of best practice for upper extremity assessment using technologies, and the formulation of evidence-based guidelines for the evaluation of upper extremity neurorehabilitation.

Modified international e-Delphi survey to define healthcare professional competencies for working with teenagers and young adults with cancer

OBJECTIVES

To provide international consensus on the competencies required by healthcare professionals in order to provide specialist care for teenagers and young adults (TYA) with cancer.

DESIGN

Modified e-Delphi survey.

SETTING

International, multicentre study.

PARTICIPANTS

Experts were defined as professionals having worked in TYA cancer care for more than 12 months. They were identified through publications and professional organisations.

METHODS

Round 1, developed from a previous qualitative study, included 87 closed-ended questions with responses on a nine-point Likert scale and further open-ended responses to identify other skills, knowledge and attitudes. Round 2 contained only items with no consensus in round 1 and suggestions of additional items of competency. Consensus was defined as a median score ranging from 7 to 9 and strength of agreement using mean absolute deviation of the median.

RESULTS

A total of 179 registered to be members of the expert panel; valid responses were available from 158 (88%) in round 1 and 136/158 (86%) in round 2. The majority of participants were nurses (35%) or doctors (39%) from Europe (55%) or North America (35%). All 87 items in round 1 reached consensus with an additional 15 items identified for round 2, which also reached consensus. The strength of agreement was mostly high for statements. The areas of competence rated most important were agreed to be: 'Identify the impact of disease on young people's life' (skill), 'Know about side effects of treatment and how this might be different to those experienced by children or older adults' (knowledge), 'Honesty' (attitude) and 'Listen to young people's concerns' (aspect of communication).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the high degree of consensus, this list of competencies should influence education curriculum, professional development and inform workforce planning. Variation in strength of agreement for some competencies between professional groups should be explored further in pursuit of effective multidisciplinary team working.

Use of a formal consensus development technique to produce recommendations for improving the effectiveness of adult mental health multidisciplinary team meetings

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are the core mechanism for delivering mental health care but it is unclear which models improve care quality. The aim of the study was to agree recommendations for improving the effectiveness of adult mental health MDT meetings, based on national guidance, research evidence and experiential insights from mental health and other medical specialties.

METHODS

We established an expert panel of 16 health care professionals, policy-makers and patient representatives. Five panellists had experience in a range of adult mental health services, five in heart failure services and six in cancer services. Panellists privately rated 68 potential recommendations on a scale of one to nine, and re-rated them after panel discussion using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to determine consensus.

RESULTS

We obtained agreement (median ≥ 7) and low variation in extent of agreement (Mean Absolute Deviation from Median of ≤1.11) for 21 recommendations. These included the explicit agreement and auditing of MDT meeting objectives, and the documentation and monitoring of treatment plan implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Formal consensus development methods that involved learning across specialities led to feasible recommendations for improved MDT meeting effectiveness in a wide range of settings. Our findings may be used by adult mental health teams to reflect on their practice and facilitate improvement. In some other contexts, the recommendations will require modification. For example, in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, context-specific issues such as the role of carers should be taken into account. A limitation of the comparative approach adopted was that only five members of the panel of 16 experts were mental health specialists.

Improving the effectiveness of multidisciplinary team meetings for patients with chronic diseases: a prospective observational study

Background

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings have been endorsed by the Department of Health as the core model for managing chronic diseases. However, the evidence for their effectiveness is mixed and the degree to which they have been absorbed into clinical practice varies widely across conditions and settings. We aimed to identify the key characteristics of chronic disease MDT meetings that are associated with decision implementation, a measure of effectiveness, and to derive a set of feasible modifications to MDT meetings to improve decision-making.

Methods

We undertook a mixed-methods prospective observational study of 12 MDTs in the London and North Thames area, covering cancer, heart failure, mental health and memory clinic teams. Data were collected by observation of 370 MDT meetings, completion of the Team Climate Inventory (TCI) by 161 MDT members, interviews with 53 MDT members and 20 patients, and review of 2654 patients’ medical records. We examined the influence of patient-related factors (disease, age, sex, deprivation indicator, whether or not their preferences and other clinical/health behaviours were mentioned) and MDT features (team climate and skill mix) on the implementation of MDT treatment plans. Interview and observation data were thematically analysed and integrated to explore possible explanations for the quantitative findings, and to identify areas of diverse beliefs and practice across MDT meetings. Based on these data, we used a modified formal consensus technique involving expert stakeholders to derive a set of indications of good practice for effective MDT meetings.

Results

The adjusted odds of implementation were reduced by 25% for each additional professional group represented [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.87], though there was some evidence of a differential effect by type of disease. Implementation was more likely in MDTs with clear goals and processes and a good team climate (adjusted odds of implementation increased by 7%; 95% CI 1% to 13% for a 0.1-unit increase in TCI score). Implementation varied by disease category (with the lowest adjusted odds of implementation in mental health teams) and by patient deprivation (adjusted odds of implementation for patients in the most compared with least deprived areas were 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.91). We ascertained 16 key themes within five domains where there was substantial diversity in beliefs and practices across MDT meetings. These related to the purpose, structure, processes and content of MDT meetings, as well as to the role of the patient. We identified 68 potential recommendations for improving the effectiveness of MDT meetings. Of these, 21 engendered both strong agreement (median ≥ 7) and low variation in the extent of agreement (mean absolute deviation from the median of < 1.11) among the expert consensus panel. These related to the purpose of the meetings (e.g. that agreeing treatment plans should take precedence over other objectives); meeting processes (e.g. that MDT decision implementation should be audited annually); content of the discussion (e.g. that information on comorbidities and past medical history should be routinely available); and the role of the patient (e.g. concerning the most appropriate time to discuss treatment options). Panellists from all specialties agreed that these recommendations were both desirable and feasible. We were unable to achieve consensus for 17 statements. In part, this was a result of disease-specific differences including the need to be prescriptive about MDT membership, with local flexibility deemed appropriate for heart failure and uniformity supported for cancer. In other cases, our data suggest that some processes (e.g. discussion of unrelated research topics) should be locally agreed, depending on the preferences of individual teams.

Conclusions

Substantial diversity exists in the purpose, structure, processes and content of MDT meetings. Greater multidisciplinarity is not necessarily associated with more effective decision-making and MDT decisions (as measured by decision implementation). Decisions were less likely to be implemented for patients living in more deprived areas. We identified 21 indications of good practice for improving the effectiveness of MDT meetings, which expert stakeholders from a range of chronic disease specialties agree are both desirable and feasible. These are important because MDT meetings are resource-intensive and they should deliver value to the NHS and patients. Priorities for future work include research to examine whether or not the 21 indications of good practice identified in this study will lead to better decision-making; for example, incorporating the indications into a modified MDT and experimentally evaluating its effectiveness in a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Other areas for further research include exploring the value of multidisciplinarity in MDT meetings and the reasons for low implementation in community mental health teams. There is also scope to examine the underlying determinants of the inequalities demonstrated in this study, for example by exploring patient preferences in more depth. Finally, future work could examine the association between MDT decision implementation and improvements in patient outcomes.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Conducting online expert panels: a feasibility and experimental replicability study

Background

This paper has two goals. First, we explore the feasibility of conducting online expert panels to facilitate consensus finding among a large number of geographically distributed stakeholders. Second, we test the replicability of panel findings across four panels of different size.

Method

We engaged 119 panelists in an iterative process to identify definitional features of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI). We conducted four parallel online panels of different size through three one-week phases by using the RAND's ExpertLens process. In Phase I, participants rated potentially definitional CQI features. In Phase II, they discussed rating results online, using asynchronous, anonymous discussion boards. In Phase III, panelists re-rated Phase I features and reported on their experiences as participants.

Results

66% of invited experts participated in all three phases. 62% of Phase I participants contributed to Phase II discussions and 87% of them completed Phase III. Panel disagreement, measured by the mean absolute deviation from the median (MAD-M), decreased after group feedback and discussion in 36 out of 43 judgments about CQI features. Agreement between the four panels after Phase III was fair (four-way kappa = 0.36); they agreed on the status of five out of eleven CQI features. Results of the post-completion survey suggest that participants were generally satisfied with the online process. Compared to participants in smaller panels, those in larger panels were more likely to agree that they had debated each others' view points.

Conclusion

It is feasible to conduct online expert panels intended to facilitate consensus finding among geographically distributed participants. The online approach may be practical for engaging large and diverse groups of stakeholders around a range of health services research topics and can help conduct multiple parallel panels to test for the reproducibility of panel conclusions.

Measures of educational effort: what is essential to clinical faculty?

PURPOSE

To enhance the recognition of educational effort and thereby support faculty vitality, the authors aimed to identify essential categories of educational effort from the perspective of clinical faculty and determine whether the emerging categories were in concordance with an organizational perspective.

METHOD

The authors performed nominal group processes in four groups in 2008, with the participation of 24 clinical faculty members, 6 in each group, representing 18 (medical, surgical, paraclinical, and psychiatric) specialties at 14 hospitals in Denmark. Subsequently, the authors performed a comparative analysis of the emerging essential categories and the organizational work by the national panel on medical education, appointed by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

RESULTS

The four groups of clinical faculty members agreed on categories of educational effort. This quantitative consistency in prioritization was supported by qualitative consistency, as the authors observed similar uses of words and phrases among all four groups. The top priority in essential categories of educational effort was "Visibility of planned educational activities on the work schedule," which received 39% of all votes. The comparative analysis showed that the essential categories of educational effort suggested by clinical faculty were in concordance with the steps developed by the AAMC.

CONCLUSIONS

The high degree of consistency among clinical faculty from different locations and specialties and the high concordance with the organizational work of the AAMC suggest that it is possible to develop standardized measurements of educational effort. Clinical faculty emphasized that a good starting point for educational measurements is the work schedule.

Rigorous development does not ensure that guidelines are acceptable to a panel of knowledgeable providers

BACKGROUND

Rigorous guideline development methods are designed to produce recommendations that are relevant to common clinical situations and consistent with evidence and expert understanding, thereby promoting guidelines' acceptability to providers. No studies have examined whether this technical quality consistently leads to acceptability.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the clinical acceptability of guidelines having excellent technical quality.

DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS

We selected guidelines covering several musculoskeletal disorders and meeting 5 basic technical quality criteria, then used the widely accepted AGREE Instrument to evaluate technical quality. Adapting an established modified Delphi method, we assembled a multidisciplinary panel of providers recommended by their specialty societies as leaders in the field. Panelists rated acceptability, including "perceived comprehensiveness" (perceived relevance to common clinical situations) and "perceived validity" (consistency with their understanding of existing evidence and opinions), for ten common condition/therapy pairs pertaining to Surgery, physical therapy, and chiropractic manipulation for lumbar spine, shoulder, and carpal tunnel disorders.

RESULTS

Five guidelines met selection criteria. Their AGREE scores were generally high indicating excellent technical quality. However, panelists found 4 guidelines to be only moderately comprehensive and valid, and a fifth guideline to be invalid overall. Of the topics covered by each guideline, panelists rated 50% to 69% as "comprehensive" and 6% to 50% as "valid".

CONCLUSION

Despite very rigorous development methods compared with guidelines assessed in prior studies, experts felt that these guidelines omitted common clinical situations and contained much content of uncertain validity. Guideline acceptability should be independently and formally evaluated before dissemination.

An experimental study of the influence of individual participant characteristics on formal consensus development

Objectives:The aim of this study was to examine the influence of participants' characteristics on the results produced by formal consensus methods.

Methods:The approach was an experimental study of 346 participants in 20 groups rating the appropriateness of four mental health interventions for the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, and chronic back pain. There were four factors in the design: systematic literature review provided or not, decisions made under realistic or “ideal” resource assumptions, clinically mixed (general practitioners and mental health professionals) or homogenous group (general practitioners only), convened or mail-only group. A group's rating was defined as the median of participants' ratings. The influence of participants' characteristics (age, sex, and specialty) was examined using multilevel models.

Results:The largest differences were between the GPs and mental health professionals, both in their initial ratings of the different interventions, and in how much they altered their ratings between rounds. There were smaller but statistically significant (p<.05) differences between specialty and age groups in initial ratings for the treatment (by whatever means) of different conditions, and for certain conditions women increased their ratings more than men. Women rated intervention more favorably when assuming “ideal” rather than realistic levels of resources, but men did not.

Conclusions:Our findings support the practice of treating professional specialty as an important determinant of the results in consensus panels.

Nutrition in primary health care: using a Delphi process to design new interdisciplinary services

PURPOSE

A modified Delphi process was used to identify key features of interdisciplinary nutrition services, including provider roles and responsibilities for Ontario Family Health Networks (FHNs), a family physician-based type of primary care.

METHODS

Twenty-three representatives from interested professional organizations, including three FHN demonstration sites, completed a modified Delphi process. Participants reviewed evidence from a systematic literature review, a patient survey, a costing analysis, and key informant interview results before undertaking the Delphi process. Statements describing various options for services were developed at an in-person meeting, which was followed by two rounds of e-mail questionnaires. Teleconference discussions were held between rounds.

RESULTS

An interdisciplinary model with differing and complementary roles for health care providers emerged from the process. Additional key features addressing screening for nutrition problems, health promotion and disease prevention, team collaboration, planning and evaluation, administrative support, access to care, and medical directives/delegated acts were identified. Under the proposed model, the registered dietitian is the team member responsible for managing all aspects of nutrition services, from needs assessment to program delivery, as well as for supporting all providers' nutrition services.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed interdisciplinary nutrition services model merits evaluation of cost, effectiveness, applicability, and sustainability in team-based primary care service settings.