ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Different types of therapies were proven effective for the medical management of motor and non-motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD). We aimed to gain consensus on the dopamine agonist (DA) therapy use in different clinical scenarios of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. METHODS: This consensus study was based on the nominal group technique. Initially, a consensus group comprising 12 expert neurologists in the PD field identified the topics to be addressed and elaborated different evidence-based preliminary statements. Next, a panel of 48 Spanish neurologists expressed their opinion on an internet-based systematic voting program. Finally, initial ideas were reviewed and rewritten according to panel contribution and were ranked by the consensus group using a Likert-type scale. The analysis of data was carried out by using a combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods. The consensus was achieved if the statement reached ≥ 3.5 points in the voting process. RESULTS: The consensus group produced 76 real-world recommendations. The topics addressed included 12 statements related to DA therapy in early PD, 20 statements concerning DA treatment strategy in patients with motor complications, 11 statements associated with DA drugs and their side effects, and 33 statements regarding DA therapy in specific clinical scenarios. The consensus group did not reach a consensus on 15 statements. CONCLUSION: The findings from this consensus method represent an exploratory step to help clinicians and patients in the appropriate use of DA in different stages and clinical situations of PD.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Current cancer treatment options include surgical intervention, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. The quality of the provision of each of them and their effective coordination determines the results in terms of benefit/risk. Regarding the radiation oncology treatments, there are not stabilised quality indicators to be used to perform control and continuous improvement processes for healthcare services. Therefore, the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology has undertaken a comprehensive project to establish quality indicators for use with the information systems available in most Spanish healthcare services. METHODS: A two-round Delphi study examines consensus of several possible quality indicators (n = 28) in daily practice. These indicators were defined after a bibliographic search and the assessment by radiation oncology specialists (n = 8). They included aspects regarding treatment equipment, patient preparation, treatment, and follow-up processes and were divided in structure, process, and outcome indicators. RESULTS: After the evaluation of the defined quality indicators (n = 28) by an expert panel (38 radiation oncologist), 26 indicators achieved consensus in terms of agreement with the statement. Two quality indicators did not achieve consensus. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high degree of consensus in Spanish Radiation Oncology specialists on which indicators in routine clinical practice can best measure quality. These indicators can be used to classify services based on several parameters (patients, equipments, complexity of the techniques used, and scientific research). Furthermore, these indicators allow assess our current situation and set improvements' objectives.
