Group concept mapping for health professions education scholarship.

While explicit conceptual models help to inform research, they are left out of much of the health professions education (HPE) literature. One reason may be the limited understanding about how to develop conceptual models with intention and rigor. Group concept mapping (GCM) is a mixed methods conceptualization approach that has been used to develop frameworks for planning and evaluation, but GCM has not been common in HPE. The purpose of this article is to describe GCM in order to make it more accessible for HPE scholars. We recount the origins and evolution of GCM and summarize its core features: GCM can combine multiple stakeholder perspectives in a systematic and inclusive manner to generate explicit conceptual models. Based on the literature and prior experience using GCM, we detail seven steps in GCM: (1) brainstorming ideas to a specific "focus prompt," (2) preparing ideas by removing duplicates and editing for consistency, (3) sorting ideas according to conceptual similarity, (4) generating the point map through quantitative analysis, (5) interpreting cluster map options, (6) summarizing the final concept map, and (7) reporting and using the map. We provide illustrative examples from HPE studies and compare GCM to other conceptualization methods. GCM has great potential to add to the myriad of methodologies open to HPE researchers. Its alignment with principles of diversity and inclusivity, as well as the need to be systematic in applying theoretical and conceptual frameworks to practice, make it a method well suited for the complexities of contemporary HPE scholarship.

Developing research priorities for palliative care in Colombia: a priority setting partnership approach.

BACKGROUND: A recent Lancet commission called for more research on palliative care in low- and middle-income (LMIC) countries such as Colombia. A research priority setting approach has been recommended by The Global Forum for Health Research to address the huge gap in research output between LMIC and high-income countries, with influential health service bodies recommending the active involvement of non-research expert stakeholders in establishing research priorities to address service user needs. METHOD: Priority setting partnership (PSP) following the four stages of the James Lind Alliance methodology; establishing the partnership, identifying evidence uncertainties, refining questions and uncertainties, and prioritization. Data from MS forms were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 33 stakeholders attended an online PSP workshop and completed the Mentimeter exercise in Microsoft Teams. A total of 48 attended the subsequent in person prioritisation exercise in urban Bogota (n = 22) and rural Popayan (n = 25). The stakeholders were a diverse group of health professionals (physicians, medical students, nurses, dentists, physiotherapists, nutritionist, occupational and speech therapists), financial and administrative staff and patients with life-limiting illness and caregivers. Top research priorities included patient and caregiver needs, service provider education and training, and better integration of palliative care with cancer and non-cancer services. The key challenges included a lack of interest in palliative care research, along with funding, time and resource constraints. Key solutions included collaboration across disciplines and settings, highlighting benefits of palliative research to help secure adequate resources, and multicentre, mixed method research, with patient involvement from the research development stage. CONCLUSION: The findings of this PSP should be disseminated among palliative care associations worldwide to inform international multicentre studies, and among governmental and nongovernmental organisations that promote research in Colombia. A focus on patient and family caregiver palliative care needs in Colombia should be prioritised.

Lost in translation: a narrative review and synthesis of the published international literature on mental health research and translation priorities (2011-2023).

BACKGROUND: Priority setting in mental health research is arguably lost in translation. Decades of effort has led to persistent repetition in what the research priorities of people with lived-experience of mental ill-health are. AIM: This was a narrative review and synthesis of published literature reporting mental health research priorities (2011-2023). METHODS: A narrative framework was established with the questions: (1) who has been involved in priority setting? With whom have priorities been set? Which priorities have been established and for whom? What progress has been made? And, whose priorities are being progressed? RESULTS: Seven papers were identified. Two were Australian, one Welsh, one English, one was from Chile and another Brazilian and one reported on a European exercise across 28 countries (ROAMER). Hundreds of priorities were listed in all exercises. Prioritisation mostly occured from survey rankings and/or workshops (using dots, or post-it note voting). Most were dominated by clinicians, academics and government rather than people with lived-experience of mental ill-health and carer, family and kinship group members. CONCLUSION: One lived-experience research led survey was identified. Few studies reported lived-experience design and development involvement. Five of the seven papers reported responses, but no further progress on priorities being met was reported.

This review followed PRISMA guidance for search strategy development and systematic review and reporting. This was not a systematic review with or without meta-analysis and the method did not fit for registration with PROSPERO.

Developing the Resident Measure of Safety in Care Homes (RMOS): A Delphi and Think Aloud Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a measure of contributory factors to safety incidents in care homes to be completed by residents and/or their unpaid carers. INTRODUCTION: Care home residents are particularly vulnerable to patient safety incidents, due to higher likelihood of frailty, multimorbidity and cognitive decline. However, despite residents and their carers wanting to be involved in safety initiatives, there are few mechanisms for them to contribute and make meaningful safety improvements to practice. METHODS: We developed 73 evidence-based items from synthesis and existing measures, which we presented to a panel of stakeholders (residents/carers, health/social care professionals and researchers). We used two online rounds of Delphi to generate consensus (80%) on items important to include in the Resident Measure of Safety in Care Homes (RMOS); a consensus meeting was later held. The draft RMOS developed through the Delphi was presented to participants during 'Think Aloud' interviews using cognitive testing techniques. RESULTS: The 29-item RMOS was developed. Forty-three participants completed Delphi round 1, and 27 participants completed round 2, 11 participants attended the consensus meeting and 12 'Think Aloud' interviews were conducted. Of the 73 original items, 42 items that did not meet consensus in Delphi round 1 were presented in round 2. After the consensus meeting, it was agreed that 35 items would comprise the RMOS questionnaire and were presented in the 'Think Aloud' interviews. Participants suggested numerous changes to items mostly to improve comprehension and ability to answer. CONCLUSION: We have a developed an evidence-based RMOS, with good face validity, to assess contributory factors to safety in care homes from a resident/carer perspective. Future work will involve psychometrically testing the items in a pilot and developing a complementary simplified, dementia-friendly version to promote inclusivity. PATIENT OR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Four patient and public contributors worked with researchers to develop the online questionnaires. Patients (residents) and carers participated on the consensus panel. One member of the research team is an expert by lived experience and was involved in design and analysis decisions. The item list and instructions for the questionnaires were reviewed for face validity, understanding and acceptability by a patient and public involvement group and modified.

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.

Committee experiences of using formal consensus in healthcare guidelines: a longitudinal qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: This feasibility study has the primary aim of capturing and comparing participant expectations and experiences of using a formal consensus method (FCM) and to explore whether these views change following participation within a guideline committee where FCM are used. METHODS: Twelve healthcare committee members and associated technical team members participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews before and after using FCM during guideline committee meetings. Interviews also focused on past experiences and expectations of informal consensus methods. RESULTS: Participants said formal consensus included a greater range of evidence. They described positive reactions and found it a useful way to encourage involvement by balancing group power dynamics. Group discussion time was identified as important to clarify ideas, supported by good group chairing. However, participants reported that undertaking FCM required additional resources and suggested targeting its use for low quality evidence, limited committee expertise, or where the evidence is controversial. CONCLUSIONS: FCM is an acceptable alternative to informal consensus methods that has qualities specifically helpful to healthcare guidelines such as encouraging participation, inclusivity of a broad range of evidence, and managing group dynamics. More research is required to better understand when using formal consensus is most appropriate and effective.

What matters to patients and clinicians when discussing the impact of cancer medicines on health-related quality of life? Consensus-based mixed methods approach in prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To identify what matters to clinicians and patients when discussing cancer medicines' impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: A framework of HRQoL domain/domain elements was developed, informed by analysis of published patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), applicable to prostate cancer. Using mixed methods (eDelphi, Nominal Group Technique and questionnaire), prostate cancer clinicians and patients attending prostate cancer clinics and support groups were asked which domains/domain elements would be important to them when discussing the impact prostate cancer medicines have on their HRQoL. RESULTS: Twenty-one clinicians and 71 patients participated from the West of Scotland. Clinicians and patients identified 53/62 domain elements across seven domains as important, of which 32 (60%) were common to both groups. Clinicians placed more importance than patients on Mood & Emotion; in contrast, patients placed importance on a broader range of Symptoms & Side Effects, being informed about their care, and having effective healthcare professional collaboration. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into the similarities and differences between what clinicians and patients think is important when discussing the impact of cancer medicines on HRQoL. Future research should involve exploring the potential for consistency of medicines PROMs across different cancer types to support patient-clinician communication and drive improvements in care.

Putting measurement on a diet: development of a core set of indicators for quality improvement in the ICU using a Delphi method.

BACKGROUND: The number and efficacy of indicators used to monitor and improve the quality of care in Intensive Care Units (ICU) is debatable. This study aimed to select a consensus-based core set of indicators for effective quality improvement in the ICU. METHODS: A Delphi study with a panel of intensivists, ICU nurses, and former ICU patients or relatives (n = 34) from general, teaching, and academic hospitals. Panelists completed a questionnaire in which they scored 69 preselected quality indicators on relevance using a nine-point Likert scale. Indicators were categorized using the rated relevance score into: 'accepted, 'equivocal' and 'excluded'. Questionnaire results were discussed in focus groups to reach consensus on the final set. RESULTS: Response rates for the questionnaire and focus groups were 100 and 68%, respectively. Consensus was reached on a final set of 17 quality indicators including patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient reported experience measures (PREMs). Other quality indicators relate to the organization and outcome of ICU care, including safety culture, ICU standardized mortality ratio, and the process indicator 'learning from and improving after serious incidents'. CONCLUSIONS: ICU clinicians and former patients and relatives developed a consensus-based core set of ICU quality indicators that is relatively short but comprehensive and particularly tailored to end-users needs.

"Glocalization" in medical education: A framework underlying implementing CBME in a local context.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The implementation of competency-based medical education is a social construction process within a local and cultural context. However, little is known about the process of adaptation to different systems, known as "glocalization". We analyzed the documents in the development of a milestone project from adapting global standards into a local context and identified a framework underlying this process. METHODS: Taiwan Society of Emergency Medicine (TSEM) had developed learning milestones based on the ACGME's version through series of consensus methods including committee work, nominal group technique (NGT), and a modified Delphi method. We applied qualitative content analysis to characterize the evolution of the three versions of TSEM and the original ACGME milestones documents and to explore the meaning behind the differences revealed by the glocalization process. RESULTS: We found 48 differences between ACGME and TSEM milestones. Among these differences, one was made by committee work, 44 came from NGT, and 3 were from the modified Delphi process. Two themes and seven sub-themes emerged from the coding process to explain the contextualization process of the milestones. CONCLUSION: We identified a framework that incorporates local expression and local needs into the process called glocalization through which global models of competency-based standards could be optimally implemented in a local context with different systems and cultures.

Methodology in core outcome set (COS) development: the impact of patient interviews and using a 5-point versus a 9-point Delphi rating scale on core outcome selection in a COS development study.

BACKGROUND: As the development of core outcome sets (COS) increases, guidance for developing and reporting high-quality COS continues to evolve; however, a number of methodological uncertainties still remain. The objectives of this study were: (1) to explore the impact of including patient interviews in developing a COS, (2) to examine the impact of using a 5-point versus a 9-point rating scale during Delphi consensus methods on outcome selection and (3) to inform and contribute to COS development methodology by advancing the evidence base on COS development techniques. METHODS: Semi-structured patient interviews and a nested randomised controlled parallel group trial as part of the Pelvic Girdle Pain Core Outcome Set project (PGP-COS). Patient interviews, as an adjunct to a systematic review of outcomes reported in previous studies, were undertaken to identify preliminary outcomes for including in a Delphi consensus survey. In the Delphi survey, participants were randomised (1:1) to a 5-point or 9-point rating scale for rating the importance of the list of preliminary outcomes. RESULTS: Four of the eight patient interview derived outcomes were included in the preliminary COS, however, none of these outcomes were included in the final PGP-COS. The 5-point rating scale resulted in twice as many outcomes reaching consensus after the 3-round Delphi survey compared to the 9-point scale. Consensus on all five outcomes included in the final PGP-COS was achieved by participants allocated the 5-point rating scale, whereas consensus on four of these was achieved by those using the 9-point scale. CONCLUSIONS: Using patient interviews to identify preliminary outcomes as an adjunct to conducting a systematic review of outcomes measured in the literature did not appear to influence outcome selection in developing the COS in this study. The use of different rating scales in a Delphi survey, however, did appear to impact on outcome selection. The 5-point scale demonstrated greater congruency than the 9-point scale with the outcomes included in the final PGP-COS. Future research to substantiate our findings and to explore the impact of other rating scales on outcome selection during COS development, however, is warranted.

Core Outcome Sets (COS) related to pregnancy and childbirth: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews often conclude low confidence in the results due to heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. A Core Outcome Set (COS) is an agreed standardised collection of outcomes for a specific area of health. The outcomes included in a COS are to be measured and summarized in clinical trials as well as systematic reviews to counteract this heterogeneity. AIM: The aim is to identify, compile and assess final and ongoing studies that are prioritizing outcomes in the area of pregnancy and childbirth. METHODS: All studies which prioritized outcomes related to pregnancy and childbirth using consensus method, including Delphi surveys or consensus meetings were included. Searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Academic Search Elite, CINAHL, SocINDEX and COMET databases up to June 2021. For all studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria, information regarding outcomes as well as population, method, and setting was extracted. In addition, reporting in the finalized studies was assessed using a modified version of the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting. RESULTS: In total, 27 finalized studies and 42 ongoing studies were assessed as relevant and were included. In the finalized studies, the number of outcomes included in the COS ranged from 6 to 51 with a median of 13 outcomes. The majority of the identified COS, both finalized as well as ongoing, were relating to physical complications during pregnancy. CONCLUSION: There is a growing number of Core Outcome Set studies related to pregnancy and childbirth. Although several of the finalized studies follow the proposed reporting, there are still some items that are not always clearly reported. Additionally, several of the identified COS contained a large number (n > 20) outcomes, something that possibly could hinder implementation. Therefore, there is a need to consider the number of outcomes which may be included in a COS to render it optimal for future research.

Consensus for a primary care clinical decision-making tool for assessing, diagnosing, and managing shoulder pain in Alberta, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain is a highly prevalent condition and a significant cause of morbidity and functional disability. Current data suggests that many patients presenting with shoulder pain at the primary care level are not receiving high quality care. Primary care decision-making is complex and has the potential to influence the quality of care provided and patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to develop a clinical decision-making tool that standardizes care and minimizes uncertainty in assessment, diagnosis, and management. METHODS: First a rapid review was conducted to identify existing tools and evidence that could support a comprehensive clinical decision-making tool for shoulder pain. Secondly, provincial consensus was established for the assessment, diagnosis, and management of patients presenting to primary care with shoulder pain in Alberta, Canada using a three-step modified Delphi approach. This project was a highly collaborative effort between Alberta Health Services' Bone and Joint Health Strategic Clinical Network (BJH SCN) and the Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute (ABJHI). RESULTS: A clinical decision-making tool for shoulder pain was developed and reached consensus by a province-wide expert panel representing various health disciplines and geographical regions. This tool consists of a clinical examination algorithm for assessing, diagnosis, and managing shoulder pain; recommendations for history-taking and identification of red flags or additional concerns; recommendations for physical examination and neurological screening; recommendations for the differential diagnosis; and care pathways for managing patients presenting with rotator cuff disease, biceps pathology, superior labral tear, adhesive capsulitis, osteoarthritis, and instability. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical decision-making tool will help to standardize care, provide guidance on the diagnosis and management of shoulder pain, and assist in clinical decision-making for primary care providers in both public and private sectors.

Research priority setting in women's health: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Developing a shared agenda is an important step in ensuring future research has the necessary relevance. OBJECTIVE: To characterise research priority setting partnerships (PSPs) relevant to women's health. SEARCH STRATEGY: Included studies were identified by searching MEDLINE and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) database. SELECTION CRITERIA: Priority setting partnerships using formal consensus methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Descriptive narrative to describe the study characteristics, methods, and results. MAIN RESULTS: Ten national and two international PSPs were identified. All PSPs used the JLA method to identify research priorities. Nine PSPs had published a protocol. Potential research uncertainties were gathered from guidelines (two studies), Cochrane reviews (five studies), and surveys (12 studies). The number of healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) who responded to the survey, and the number of uncertainties submitted (52-4767) varied. All PSPs entered confirmed research uncertainties (39-104) into interim priority setting surveys and healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) responded. All PSPs entered a short list of research uncertainties into a consensus development meeting, which enabled healthcare professionals (six to 21), patients (eight to 14), and others (two to 13) to identify research priorities (ten to 15). Four PSPs have published their results. CONCLUSION: Future research priority setting studies should publish a protocol, use formal consensus development methods, and ensure their methods and results are comprehensively reported. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Research published in @BJOGtweets highlights future research priorities across women's health, including @FertilityTop10, @jamesmnduffy.

2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: To develop new classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) jointly supported by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). METHODS: This international initiative had four phases. (1) Evaluation of antinuclear antibody (ANA) as an entry criterion through systematic review and meta-regression of the literature and criteria generation through an international Delphi exercise, an early patient cohort and a patient survey. (2) Criteria reduction by Delphi and nominal group technique exercises. (3) Criteria definition and weighting based on criterion performance and on results of a multi-criteria decision analysis. (4) Refinement of weights and threshold scores in a new derivation cohort of 1001 subjects and validation compared with previous criteria in a new validation cohort of 1270 subjects. RESULTS: The 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria for SLE include positive ANA at least once as obligatory entry criterion; followed by additive weighted criteria grouped in seven clinical (constitutional, haematological, neuropsychiatric, mucocutaneous, serosal, musculoskeletal, renal) and three immunological (antiphospholipid antibodies, complement proteins, SLE-specific antibodies) domains, and weighted from 2 to 10. Patients accumulating ≥10 points are classified. In the validation cohort, the new criteria had a sensitivity of 96.1% and specificity of 93.4%, compared with 82.8% sensitivity and 93.4% specificity of the ACR 1997 and 96.7% sensitivity and 83.7% specificity of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics 2012 criteria. CONCLUSION: These new classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary and international input, and have excellent sensitivity and specificity. Use of ANA entry criterion, hierarchically clustered and weighted criteria reflect current thinking about SLE and provide an improved foundation for SLE research.

A four-stage process for intervention description and guide development of a practice-based intervention: refining the Namaste Care intervention implementation specification for people with advanced dementia prior to a feasibility cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Some interventions are developed from practice, and implemented before evidence of effect is determined, or the intervention is fully specified. An example is Namaste Care, a multi-component intervention for people with advanced dementia, delivered in care home, community, hospital and hospice settings. This paper describes the development of an intervention description, guide and training package to support implementation of Namaste Care within the context of a feasibility trial. This allows fidelity to be determined within the trial, and for intervention users to understand how similar their implementation is to that which was studied. METHODS: A four-stage approach: a) Collating existing intervention materials and drawing from programme theory developed from a realist review to draft an intervention description. b) Exploring readability, comprehensibility and utility with staff who had not experienced Namaste Care. c) Using modified nominal group techniques with those with Namaste Care experience to refine and prioritise the intervention implementation materials. d) Final refinement with a patient and public involvement panel. RESULTS: Eighteen nursing care home staff, one carer, one volunteer and five members of our public involvement panel were involved across the study steps. A 16-page A4 booklet was designed, with flow charts, graphics and colour coded information to ease navigation through the document. This was supplemented by infographics, and a training package. The guide describes the boundaries of the intervention and how to implement it, whilst retaining the flexible spirit of the Namaste Care intervention. CONCLUSIONS: There is little attention paid to how best to specify complex interventions that have already been organically implemented in practice. This four-stage process may have utility for context specific adaptation or description of existing, but untested, interventions. A robust, agreed, intervention and implementation description should enable a high-quality future trial. If an effect is determined, flexible practice implementation should be enabled through having a clear, evidence-based guide.

Key Topics in Molecular Docking for Drug Design.

Molecular docking has been widely employed as a fast and inexpensive technique in the past decades, both in academic and industrial settings. Although this discipline has now had enough time to consolidate, many aspects remain challenging and there is still not a straightforward and accurate route to readily pinpoint true ligands among a set of molecules, nor to identify with precision the correct ligand conformation within the binding pocket of a given target molecule. Nevertheless, new approaches continue to be developed and the volume of published works grows at a rapid pace. In this review, we present an overview of the method and attempt to summarise recent developments regarding four main aspects of molecular docking approaches: (i) the available benchmarking sets, highlighting their advantages and caveats, (ii) the advances in consensus methods, (iii) recent algorithms and applications using fragment-based approaches, and (iv) the use of machine learning algorithms in molecular docking. These recent developments incrementally contribute to an increase in accuracy and are expected, given time, and together with advances in computing power and hardware capability, to eventually accomplish the full potential of this area.

Developing a measure of polypharmacy appropriateness in primary care: systematic review and expert consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is an increasing challenge for primary care. Although sometimes clinically justified, polypharmacy can be inappropriate, leading to undesirable outcomes. Optimising care for polypharmacy necessitates effective targeting and monitoring of interventions. This requires a valid, reliable measure of polypharmacy, relevant for all patients, that considers clinical appropriateness and generic prescribing issues applicable across all medications. Whilst there are several existing measures of potentially inappropriate prescribing, these are not specifically designed with polypharmacy in mind, can require extensive clinical input to complete, and often cover a limited number of drugs. The aim of this study was to identify what experts consider to be the key elements of a measure of prescribing appropriateness in the context of polypharmacy. METHODS: Firstly, we conducted a systematic review to identify generic (not drug specific) prescribing indicators relevant to polypharmacy appropriateness. Indicators were subject to content analysis to enable categorisation. Secondly, we convened a panel of 10 clinical experts to review the identified indicators and assess their relative clinical importance. For each indicator category, a brief evidence summary was developed, based on relevant clinical and indicator literature, clinical guidance, and opinions obtained from a separate patient discussion panel. A two-stage RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to reach consensus amongst the panel on a core set of indicators of polypharmacy appropriateness. RESULTS: We identified 20,879 papers for title/abstract screening, obtaining 273 full papers. We extracted 189 generic indicators, and presented 160 to the panel grouped into 18 classifications (e.g. adherence, dosage, clinical efficacy). After two stages, during which the panel introduced 18 additional indicators, there was consensus that 134 indicators were of clinical importance. Following the application of decision rules and further panel consultation, 12 indicators were placed into the final selection. Panel members particularly valued indicators concerned with adverse drug reactions, contraindications, drug-drug interactions, and the conduct of medication reviews. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified a set of 12 indicators of clinical importance considered relevant to polypharmacy appropriateness. Use of these indicators in clinical practice and informatics systems is dependent on their operationalisation and their utility (e.g. risk stratification, targeting and monitoring polypharmacy interventions) requires subsequent evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number: PROSPERO ( CRD42016049176 ).

National implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection - recommendations from a UK consensus meeting.

OBJECTIVES: To identify areas of agreement and disagreement in the implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate in the diagnostic pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen UK experts in prostate mpMRI and/or prostate cancer management across the UK (involving nine NHS centres to provide for geographical spread) participated in a consensus meeting following the Research and Development Corporation and University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA-RAND) Appropriateness Method, and were moderated by an independent chair. The experts considered 354 items pertaining to who can request an mpMRI, prostate mpMRI protocol, reporting guidelines, training, quality assurance (QA) and patient management based on mpMRI levels of suspicion for cancer. Each item was rated for agreement on a 9-point scale. A panel median score of ≥7 constituted 'agreement' for an item; for an item to reach 'consensus', a panel majority scoring was required. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 59% of items (208/354); these were used to provide recommendations for the implementation of prostate mpMRI in the UK. Key findings include prostate mpMRI requests should be made in consultation with the urological team; mpMRI scanners should undergo QA checks to guarantee consistently high diagnostic quality scans; scans should only be reported by trained and experienced radiologists to ensure that men with unsuspicious prostate mpMRI might consider avoiding an immediate biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Our consensus statements demonstrate a set of criteria that are required for the practical dissemination of consistently high-quality prostate mpMRI as a diagnostic test before biopsy in men at risk.

Prioritizing novel and existing ambulance performance measures through expert and lay consensus: A three-stage multimethod consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Current ambulance quality and performance measures, such as response times, do not reflect the wider scope of care that services now provide. Using a three-stage consensus process, we aimed to identify new ways of measuring ambulance service quality and performance that represent service provider and public perspectives. DESIGN: A multistakeholder consensus event, modified Delphi study, and patient and public consensus workshop. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Representatives from ambulance services, patient and public involvement (PPI) groups, emergency care clinical academics, commissioners and policymakers. RESULTS: Nine measures/principles were highly prioritized by >75% of consensus event participants, including measures relating to pain, patient experience, accuracy of dispatch decisions and patient safety. Twenty experts participated in two Delphi rounds to further refine and prioritize measures; 20 measures in three domains scored ≥8/9, indicating good consensus, including proportion of calls correctly prioritized, time to definitive care and measures related to pain. Eighteen patient/public representatives attended a consensus workshop, and six measures were identified as important. These include time to definitive care, response time, reduction in pain scores, calls correctly prioritized to appropriate levels of response and survival to hospital discharge for treatable emergency conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Using consensus methods, we identified a shortlist of ambulance outcome and performance measures that are important to ambulance clinicians and service providers, service users, commissioners, and clinical academics, reflecting current pre-hospital ambulance care and services. The measures can potentially be used to assess pre-hospital quality or performance over time, with most calculated using routinely available data.

Using a modified nominal group technique to develop general practice.

BACKGROUND: There are few areas of health care where sufficient research-based evidence exists and primary health care is no exception. In the absence of such evidence, the development of assisted support must be based on the opinions and experience of professionals with knowledge of the relevant field. The purpose of this research project is to explore how the nominal group technique can be used to establish consensus by analysing how it supported the development of structured, knowledge-based, electronic health records for preventive child health examinations in Danish general practice. METHODS: We convened an expert panel of five general practitioners with a special interest in the preventive child health examinations. We introduced the panel to the nominal group technique, a well-established, structured, multistep, facilitated, group meeting technique used to generate consensus. The panel used the technique to agree on the key clinical and socioeconomic themes to include in new electronic records for the seven preventive child health examinations in Denmark. The panel met three times over a four-month period between 2013 and 2014 and their meetings lasted between two-and-a-half and five hours. RESULTS: 1) The structured and stepwise process of the nominal group technique supported our expert panel's focus as well as their equal opportunities to speak. 2) The method's flexibility enabled participants to work as a group and in pairs to discuss and refine thematic classifications. 3) Serial meetings supported continual evaluation, critical reflection, and knowledge searches, enabling our panel to produce a template that could be adapted for all seven preventive child health examinations. CONCLUSION: The nominal group technique proved to be a useful method for reaching consensus by identifying key quality markers for use in daily clinical practice. Our study focused on the development of content and a layout for systematic, knowledge-based, electronic health records. We recommend the method as a suitable working tool for dealing with complex questions in general practice or similar settings, and we present and discuss modifications to the original model.