Use of a Delphi panel to establish consensus for recommended uses of selected balance assessment approaches

Design and validation of indicators for the comprehensive measurement of quality of care for type 2 diabetes and acute respiratory infections in ambulatory health services

Developing ambulatory health services (AHS) of optimal quality is a pending issue for many health systems at a global level, especially in middle- and low-income countries. An effective health response requires indicators to measure the quality of care that are context-specific and feasible for routine monitoring. This paper aimed to design and validate indicators for assessing the technical and interpersonal quality dimensions for type 2 diabetes (T2D) and acute respiratory infections (ARI) care in AHS. The study was conducted in two stages. First, technical and user-centered-based indicators of quality of care for T2D and ARI care were designed following international recommendations, mainly from the American Diabetes Association standards and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. We then assessed the validity, reliability, relevance, and feasibility of the proposed indicators implementing the modified Delphi technique. A panel of 17 medical experts from five countries scored the indicators using two electronic questionnaires, one for each reason for consultation selected, sent by email in two sequential rounds of rating. We defined the levels of consensus according to the overall median for each performance category, which was established as the threshold. Selected indicators included those with scores equal to or higher than the threshold. We designed 36 T2D indicators, of which 16 were validated for measuring the detection of risks and complications, glycemic control, pharmacological treatment, and patient-centered care. Out of the 22 indicators designed for ARI, we validated 10 for diagnosis, appropriate prescription of antimicrobials, and patient-centered care. The validated indicators showed consistency for the dimensions analyzed. Hence, they proved to be a potentially reliable and valuable tool for monitoring the performance of the various T2D and ARI care processes in AHS. Further research will be needed to verify the applicability of the validated indicators in routine clinical practice.

The burden of the most common rheumatic disease in Colombia

BACKGROUND

Estimating the burden of rheumatic diseases (RDs) requires proper evaluation of its lethal and nonlethal consequences. In Colombia, it is possible to find local data and Global Burden of Disease (GBD) reports that collect information from varied contexts and apply complex statistical models, but no on-site estimations are available.

METHODS

This was a descriptive study on the burden of RD based on occurrence and mortality data in the general population during 2015, including information and prevalence estimations from the Community Oriented Program for the Control of Rheumatic Diseases (COPCORD) study. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were estimated by combining measures of years of life lost (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLDs). For disability weight estimations among cases, different COPCORD responses were mapped using flowcharts to show the severity distribution according to GBD. All model parameters and results were validated through an expert consensus panel.

RESULTS

Low back pain (LBP) was the RD with the greatest burden of disease, costing 606.05 (95% CI 502.76-716.58) DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants, followed by osteoarthritis (292.11; 95% CI 205.76-386.85) and rheumatoid arthritis (192.46, 95% CI 109.7-239.69).

CONCLUSIONS

The burden of RD is as high in Colombia as in other countries of the region. The results offer an interesting tool for optimizing healthcare system design as well as for planning the distribution of human and economic resources to achieve early diagnosis and adequate care of these diseases.

Towards more credible shams for physical interventions: A Delphi survey

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In clinical trials of physical interventions, participant blinding is often poorly addressed and therapist blinding routinely omitted. This situation presents a substantial barrier to moving the field forward. Improving the success of blinding will be a vital step towards determining the true mechanisms of physical interventions. We used a Delphi approach to identify important elements of shams for physical interventions to maximise the likelihood of participant and therapist blinding in clinical trials.

METHODS

Two expert groups were recruited: (1) experts in research methodology and (2) experts in deceptive and/or hypnotic techniques including magic. Magicians were included because they were considered a potentially rich source of innovation for developing credible shams due to their unique skills in altering perceptions and beliefs. Three rounds of survey were conducted, commencing with an open-ended question. Responses were converted to single 'items', which participants rated in the following two rounds using a 9-point Likert scale, categorised as 'Not important' (0-3), 'Depends' (4-6) and 'Essential' (7-9). Consensus was pre-defined as ≥80% agreement within a 3-point category.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight experts agreed to participate (research methodology: n = 22; deceptive and/or hypnotic techniques: n = 16), and 30 experts responded to at least one round (research methodology: n = 19; deceptive and/or hypnotic techniques: n = 11). Of 79 items, five reached consensus in the 'Essential' category in both groups, which related to beliefs of participants (n = 3 items), interactions with researchers (n = 1 item) and standardisation of clinical assessments (n = 1 item). Thirteen additional items reached consensus in the 'Essential' category in one group. Experts in research methodology had one additional item reach consensus, related to authentic delivery of study information. The remaining 12 additional items that reached consensus in the deceptive and/or hypnotic techniques group related mainly to therapist attitude and behaviour and the clinical interaction.

CONCLUSION

Experts agreed that, for shams to be believable, consideration of cognitive influences is essential. Contrary to the focus of previous shams for physical interventions, replicating the tactile sensation of the active treatment was not considered an essential part of sham development. Therefore, when designing sham-controlled clinical trials, researchers should carefully consider the cognitive credibility of the entire intervention experience, and not just the indistinguishability of the sham intervention itself. The findings provide new guidance to researchers on important contributors to blinding in physical intervention trials.

Algorithm for selection of balance assessment tools in post-stroke patients

The aim of the study was to design an algorithm of selecting the balance assessment tool in patients after stroke, which could be used in a subacute rehabilitation setting. A retrospective study was carried out to analyse results of standardized balance measurements in three groups of stroke patients classified by Functional Ambulation Category (FAC) (FAC 1 or 2, non-functional ambulation; FAC 3 or 4, ambulatory dependent; FAC 5 or 6, ambulatory independent). Balance functions were evaluated in 62 out of 70 patients (88.6%) at admission and discharge with at least with one standardized assessment tool. In 21 patients (30%), two or more assessment tools were used. From admission to discharge significant changes in balance functions in the non-functional ambulatory group were detected by Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke (PASS) (P = 0.003), in the ambulatory dependent group with PASS (P = 0.025) and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) (P = 0.009) and in the ambulatory independent group with the Timed Up and Go Test (P = 0.002) and Functional Gait Assessment (P = 0.029). In a post-stroke rehabilitation most commonly used BBS and PASS are sensitive enough in non-functional ambulatory and ambulatory dependent patients, though they do not reflect the overall balance function. In ambulatory independent patients, significant changes in balance functions can be detected only with the assessment tools that include the measurements of dynamic balance. Based on the findings, the algorithm for the selection of balance assessment tools in post-stroke rehabilitation setting was formulated according to FAC.

Social Determinants of Health Assessment Tool: Implications for Healthcare Practice

Underserved populations are at risk for chronic health conditions due to social determinants. There is a gap in instrument availability in identifying individuals at risk of, or experiencing, cumulative social, environmental, economic, and cultural factors impacting health. The Social Determinants of Health Assessment Tool is a brief, cost-effective semistructured interview allowing healthcare professionals to engage in appropriate service prioritization. Phase I of this instrument development reported adequate face validity by Delphi panel consensus with experts in social work, nursing, public health, and psychology. This instrument identifies individuals at risk of social determinants to improve healthcare and social service delivery.

Portrait of trauma care in Quebec's rural emergency departments and identification of priority intervention needs to improve the quality of care: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Trauma remains the primary cause of death in individuals under 40 years of age in Canada. In Quebec, the Trauma Care Continuum (TCC) has been demonstrated to be effective in decreasing the mortality rate among trauma victims. Although rural citizens are at greater risk for trauma and trauma death, no empirical data concerning the effectiveness of the TCC for the rural population in Quebec are available. The emergency departments (EDs) are important safety nets for rural citizens. However, our data indicate that access to diagnostic support services, such as intensive care units and CT is limited in rural areas. The objectives are to (1) draw a portrait of trauma services in rural EDs; (2) explore geographical variations in trauma care in Quebec; (3) identify adaptable factors that could reduce variation; and (4) establish consensus solutions for improving the quality of care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study will take place from November 2015 to November 2018. A mixed methodology (qualitative and quantitative) will be used. We will include data (2009-2013) from all trauma victims treated in the 26 rural EDs and tertiary/secondary care centres in Quebec. To meet objectives 1 and 2, data will be gathered from the Ministry's Database of the Quebec Trauma Registry Information System. For objectives 3 and 4, the project will use the Delphi method to develop consensus solutions for improving the quality of trauma care in rural areas. Data will be analysed using a Poisson regression to compare mortality rate during hospital stay or death on ED arrival (objectives 1 and 2). Average scores and 95% CI will be calculated for the Delphi questionnaire (objectives 3 and 4).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has been approved by CSSS Alphonse-Desjardins research ethics committee (Project MP-HDL-2016-003). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

Stability of daily home-based measures of postural control over an 8-week period in highly functioning older adults

PURPOSE

The focus of this study was to monitor daily objective measures of standing postural control over an 8-week period, recorded in a person's home, in a population of healthy older adults. Establishing natural patterns of variation in the day-to-day signal, occurring in the relative absence of functional decline or disease, would enable us to determine thresholds for changes in postural control from baseline that could be considered clinically important.

METHODS

Eighteen community-dwelling older adults (3 M, 15 F, 72 ± 6 years) participated in a home-based trial where each day they were asked to complete a technology-enabled routine consisting of a short questionnaire, as well as a quiet standing balance trial. Centre of pressure (COP) excursions were calculated over the course of each daily balance trial to generate variables such as postural sway length and mean sway frequency.

RESULTS

The data demonstrated large differences between subjects in centre of pressure measures (coefficients of variation ranging 37-107 %, depending on the variable). Each participant also exhibited variations in their day-to-day trials (e.g. coefficients of variation across 8 weeks ranging ~17-56 %, within person for mean COP distance). Inter- and intra-subject differences were not strongly related to functional tests, suggesting that these variations were not necessarily aberrant movement patterns, but are seemingly representative of natural movement variability.

CONCLUSIONS

The idea of applying a group-focused approach at an individual level may result in misclassifying important changes for a particular individual. Early detection of deterioration can only be achieved through the creation of individual trajectories for each person, that are inherently self referential.

Using the systems framework for postural control to analyze the components of balance evaluated in standardized balance measures: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To identify components of postural control included in standardized balance measures for adult populations.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases using keyword combinations of postural balance/equilibrium, psychometrics/reproducibility of results/predictive value of tests/validation studies, instrument construction/instrument validation, geriatric assessment/disability evaluation, gray literature, and hand searches.

STUDY SELECTION

Inclusion criteria were measures with a stated objective to assess balance, adult populations (18y and older), at least 1 psychometric evaluation, 1 standing task, a standardized protocol and evaluation criteria, and published in English. Two reviewers independently identified studies for inclusion. Sixty-six measures were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

A research assistant extracted descriptive characteristics and 2 reviewers independently coded components of balance in each measure using the Systems Framework for Postural Control, a widely recognized model of balance.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Components of balance evaluated in these measures were underlying motor systems (100% of measures), anticipatory postural control (71%), dynamic stability (67%), static stability (64%), sensory integration (48%), functional stability limits (27%), reactive postural control (23%), cognitive influences (17%), and verticality (8%). Thirty-four measures evaluated 3 or fewer components of balance, and 1 measure-the Balance Evaluation Systems Test-evaluated all components of balance.

CONCLUSIONS

Several standardized balance measures provide only partial information on postural control and omit important components of balance related to avoiding falls. As such, the choice of measure(s) may limit the overall interpretation of an individual's balance ability. Continued work is necessary to increase the implementation of comprehensive balance assessment in research and practice.

The methodological approach used to develop the 2013 Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Clinical Practice Guidelines for adult ICU patients

OBJECTIVE

In 2006, the American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-member task force to revise the 2002 guidelines for sedation and analgesia in critically ill adults. This article describes the methodological approach used to develop the American College of Critical Care Medicine's 2013 ICU Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Clinical Practice Guidelines.

DESIGN

Review article.

SETTING

Multispecialty critical care units.

PATIENTS

Adult ICU patients.

INTERVENTIONS

The task force was divided into four subcommittees, focusing on pain, sedation, delirium, and related outcomes. Unique aspects of this approach included the use of: 1) the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method to evaluate the literature; 2) a librarian to conduct literature searches and to create and maintain the pain, agitation, and delirium database; 3) creation of a single web-based database; 4) rigorous psychometric analyses of pain, sedation, and delirium assessment tools; 5) the use of anonymous electronic polling; and 6) creation of an ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle.

RESULTS

The pain, agitation, and delirium database includes over 19,000 references. With the help of psychometric experts, members developed a scoring system and analyzed the psychometric properties of 6 behavioral pain scales, 10 sedation/agitation scales, and 5 delirium monitoring tools. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the overall impact of benzodiazepine versus nonbenzodiazepine sedation on ICU outcomes. The pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines include 54 evidence-based statements and recommendations. The quality of evidence and strength for each statement and recommendation was ranked. In the absence of sufficient evidence or group consensus, no recommendations were made. An ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle was created to facilitate adoption of the pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines. It focuses on taking an integrated approach to assessing, treating, and preventing pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium in critically ill patients, and it links pain, agitation, and delirium management to spontaneous awakening trials, spontaneous breathing trials, and ICU early mobility and sleep hygiene programs in order to achieve synergistic benefits to ICU patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2013 ICU pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines provide critical care providers with an evidence-based, integrated, and interdisciplinary approach to managing pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium. The methodological approach used to develop the guidelines ensures that they are rigorous, evidence-based, and transparent. Implementation of the ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle is expected to have a significant beneficial impact on ICU outcomes and costs.

The development of a clinical screening instrument for tumour predisposition syndromes in childhood cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Identification of tumour predisposition syndromes in patients who have cancer in childhood is paramount for optimal care. A screening instrument that can help to identify such patients will facilitate physicians caring for children with cancer. The complete screening instrument should consist of a standardised series of pictures and a screening form for manifestations not visible in the pictures. Here we describe the development of such a screening form based on an international two-stage Delphi process and an initial validation of the complete instrument.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified manifestations that may contribute to the diagnosis of a tumour predisposition syndrome through the Winter-Baraitser Dysmorphology Database and the textbook "Gorlin's Syndromes of the Head and Neck". In a two-round Delphi process, eight international content-experts scored the contribution of each of these manifestations. We performed a clinical validation of the instrument in a selected cohort of 10 paediatric cancer patients from another centre.

RESULTS

In total, 49 manifestations were found to contribute to the diagnosis of a tumour predisposition syndrome and were included in the screening form. The pilot validation study showed that patients suspected of having a tumour predisposition syndrome were recognised. Excellent correlation for indications of patient's referral between the screening instrument and the reference standard (personal evaluation by an experienced clinical geneticist) was found.

CONCLUSIONS

The Delphi process performed by international specialists with a function as opinion leaders in their field of expertise, has led to a screening instrument for childhood cancer patients. Patients who may have a tumour predisposition syndrome and thus have an indication to be referred for further genetic analysis, can be identified using the screening instrument.

Clinical balance assessment: perceptions of commonly-used standardized measures and current practices among physiotherapists in Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND

Balance impairment is common in multiple clinical populations, and comprehensive assessment is important for identifying impairments, planning individualized treatment programs, and evaluating change over time. However, little information is available regarding whether clinicians who treat balance are satisfied with existing assessment tools. In 2010 we conducted a cross-sectional survey of balance assessment practices among physiotherapists in Ontario, Canada, and reported on the use of standardized balance measures (Sibley et al. 2011 Physical Therapy; 91: 1583-91). The purpose of this study was to analyse additional survey data and i) evaluate satisfaction with current balance assessment practices and standardized measures among physiotherapists who treat adult or geriatric populations with balance impairment, and ii) identify factors associated with satisfaction.

METHODS

The questionnaire was distributed to 1000 practicing physiotherapists. This analysis focuses on questions in which respondents were asked to rate their general perceptions about balance assessment, the perceived utility of individual standardized balance measures, whether they wanted to improve balance assessment practices, and why. Data were summarized with descriptive statistics and utility of individual measures was compared across clinical practice areas (orthopaedic, neurological, geriatric or general rehabilitation).

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 369 respondents, of which 43.4% of respondents agreed that existing standardized measures of balance meet their needs. In ratings of individual measures, the Single Leg Stance test and Berg Balance Scale were perceived as useful for clinical decision-making and evaluating change over time by over 70% of respondents, and the Timed Up-and-Go test was perceived as useful for decision-making by 56.9% of respondents and useful for evaluating change over time by 62.9% of respondents, but there were significant differences across practice groups. Seventy-nine percent of respondents wanted to improve their assessments, identifying individual, environmental and measure-specific barriers. The most common barriers were lack of time and knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers new information on issues affecting the evaluation of balance in clinical settings from a broad sample of physiotherapists. Continued work to address barriers by specific practice area will be critical for the success of any intervention attempting to implement optimal balance assessment practices in the clinical setting.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

To revise the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult" published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002.

METHODS

The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over 6 yr in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey (http://www.esurvey.com). All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2), and either in favor of (+) or against (-) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention's desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase "We recommend …" is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase "We suggest …" is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflict of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.

Balance assessment practices and use of standardized balance measures among Ontario physical therapists

BACKGROUND

Balance impairment is a significant problem for older adults, as it can influence daily functioning. Treating balance impairment in this population is a major focus of physical therapist practice.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to document current practices in clinical balance assessment and compare components of balance assessed and measures used across practice areas among physical therapists.

DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional study.

METHODS

A survey questionnaire was mailed to 1,000 practicing physical therapists in Ontario, Canada.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty-nine individuals completed the survey questionnaire. More than 80% of respondents reported that they regularly (more than 60% of the time) assessed postural alignment, static and dynamic stability, functional balance, and underlying motor systems. Underlying sensory systems, cognitive contributions to balance, and reactive control were regularly assessed by 59.6%, 55.0%, and 41.2% of the respondents, respectively. The standardized measures regularly used by the most respondents were the single-leg stance test (79.1%), the Berg Balance Scale (45.0%), and the Timed "Up & Go" Test (27.6%). There was considerable variation in the components of balance assessed and measures used by respondents treating individuals in the orthopedic, neurologic, geriatric, and general rehabilitation populations.

LIMITATIONS

The survey provides quantitative data about what is done to assess balance, but does not explain the factors influencing current practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Many important components of balance and standardized measures are regularly used by physical therapists to assess balance. Further research, however, is needed to understand the factors contributing to the relatively lower rates of assessing reactive control, the component of balance most directly responsible for avoiding a fall.