Delphi Method to Achieve Clinical Consensus for a BPMN Representation of the Central Venous Access Placement for Training Purposes

The sac evolution imaging follow-up after endovascular aortic repair: An international expert opinion-based Delphi consensus study

OBJECTIVE

Management of follow-up protocols after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) varies significantly between centers and is not standardized according to sac regression. By designing an international expert-based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on follow-up after EVAR according to sac evolution.

METHODS

Eight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted, using a 4-point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three-round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts' responses, only those statements reaching a grade A (full agreement ≥75%) or B (overall agreement ≥80% and full disagreement <5%) were included in the final document.

RESULTS

One-hundred and seventy-four participants were included in the final analysis, and each voted the initial 29 statements related to the definition of sac regression (Q1-Q9), EVAR follow-up (Q10-Q14), and the assessment and role of sac regression during follow-up (Q15-Q29). At the end of the process, 2 statements (6.9%) were rejected, 9 statements (31%) received a grade B consensus strength, and 18 (62.1%) reached a grade A consensus strength. Of 27 final statements, 15 (55.6%) were classified as grade I, whereas 12 (44.4%) were classified as grade II. Experts agreed that sac regression should be considered an important indicator of EVAR success and always be assessed during follow-up after EVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert-based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide the current clinical management of follow-up after EVAR according to the sac regression. Future studies are needed to clarify debated issues.

The Sequence of Steps: A Key Concept Missing in Surgical Training-A Systematic Review and Recommendations to Include It

BACKGROUND

Surgical procedures have an inherent feature, which is the sequence of steps. Moreover, studies have shown variability in surgeons' performances, which is valuable to expose residents to different ways to perform a procedure. However, it is unclear how to include the sequence of steps in training programs.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review, including studies reporting explicit teaching of a standard sequence of steps, where assessment considered adherence to a standard sequence, and where faculty or students at any level participated. We searched for articles on PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases.

RESULTS

We selected nine articles that met the inclusion criteria. The main strategy to teach the sequence was to use videos to demonstrate the procedure. The simulation was the main strategy to assess the learning of the sequence of steps. Non-standardized scoring protocols and written tests with variable validity evidence were the instruments used to assess the learning, and were focused on adherence to a standard sequence and the omission of steps.

CONCLUSIONS

Teaching and learning assessment of a standard sequence of steps is scarcely reported in procedural skills training literature. More research is needed to evaluate whether the new strategies to teach and assess the order of steps work. We recommend the use of Surgical Process Models and Surgical Data Science to incorporate the sequence of steps when teaching and assessing procedural skills.

ProDeM: A Process-Oriented Delphi Method for systematic asynchronous and consensual surgical process modelling

Surgical process models support improving healthcare provision by facilitating communication and reasoning about processes in the medical domain. Modelling surgical processes is challenging as it requires integrating information that might be fragmented, scattered, and not process-oriented. These challenges can be faced by involving healthcare domain experts during process modelling. This paper presents ProDeM: a novel Process-Oriented Delphi Method for the systematic, asynchronous, and consensual modelling of surgical processes. ProDeM is an adaptable and flexible method that acknowledges that: (i) domain experts have busy calendars and might be geographically dispersed, and (ii) various elements of the process model need to be assessed to ensure model quality. The contribution of the paper is twofold as it outlines ProDeM, but also demonstrates its operationalisation in the context of a well-known surgical process. Besides showing the method's feasibility in practice, we also present an evaluation of the method by the experts involved in the demonstration.

Editor's Choice - PRINciples of optimal antithrombotiC therapy and coagulation managEment during elective fenestrated and branched EndovaScular aortic repairS (PRINCE2SS): An International Expert Based Delphi Consensus Study

OBJECTIVE

Management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing elective fenestrated branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) is not standardised, nor are there any recommendations from current guidelines. By designing an international expert based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on the pre-, intra-, and post-operative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients scheduled for elective F-BEVAR in high volume centres.

METHODS

Eight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted on, using a four point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts' responses, only those statements reaching Grade A (full agreement ≥ 75%) or B (overall agreement ≥ 80% and full disagreement < 5%) were included in the final document. The round answers' consistency was graded using Cohen's k, the intraclass correlation coefficient, and, in case of double re-submission, the Fleiss k.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven experts were included in the final analysis and voted the initial 43 statements related to pre- (n = 15), intra- (n = 10), and post-operative (n = 18) management of antithrombotic drugs. At the end of the process, six statements (13%) were rejected, 20 statements (44%) received a Grade B consensus, and 18 statements (40%) reached a Grade A consensus. Most statements (27; 71%) exhibited very high or high consistency grades, and 11 (29%) a fair or poor grading. The intra-operative statements mostly concentrated on threshold for and monitoring of proper heparinisation. The pre- and post-operative statements mainly focused on indications for dual antiplatelet therapy and its management, considering the possible need for cerebrospinal fluid drainage.

CONCLUSION

Based on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide current clinical management of antithrombotic therapy for elective F-BEVAR. Future studies are needed to clarify the debated issues.