A modified Delphi study to identify the features of high quality measurement plans for healthcare improvement projects.

MedStar author(s):
Citation: BMC Medical Research Methodology. 20(1):8, 2020 01 14.PMID: 31937262Department: MedStar Institute for Quality and SafetyForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: *Delivery of Health Care/og [Organization & Administration] | *Delphi Technique | *Quality Improvement | Consensus | Female | Humans | Male | Surveys and QuestionnairesYear: 2020Local holdings: Available online from MWHC library: 2001 - presentISSN:
  • 1471-2288
Name of journal: BMC medical research methodologyAbstract: BACKGROUND: The design and execution of measurement in quality improvement (QI) initiatives is often poor. Better guidance on "what good looks like" might help to mitigate some of the problems. We report a consensus-building process that sought to identify which features are important to include in QI measurement plans.CONCLUSIONS: This study offers a consensus-based view on the features of a good measurement plan for a QI project in healthcare. The results may be of use to QI teams, funders and evaluators, but are likely to require further development and testing to ensure feasibility and usefulness.METHODS: We conducted a three-stage consensus-building approach: (1) identifying the list of features of measurement plans that were potential candidates for inclusion based on literature review and the study team's experience; (2) a two-round modified Delphi exercise with a panel of experts to establish consensus on the importance of these features; and (3) a small in-person consensus group meeting to finalise the list of features.RESULTS: A list of 104 candidate questions was generated. A panel of 19 experts in the Delphi reviewed these questions and produced consensus on retaining 46 questions in the first round and on a further 22 in the second round. Thematic analysis of open text responses from the panellists suggested a number of areas of debate that were explicitly considered by the consensus group. The exercise yielded 74 questions (71% of 104) on which there was consensus in five categories of measurement relating to: design, data collection and management, analysis, action, and embedding.All authors: Adeleke Y, Dixon-Woods M, Goeschel C, Pronovost P, Woodcock TOriginally published: BMC Medical Research Methodology. 20(1):8, 2020 Jan 14.Fiscal year: FY2020Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2020-02-10
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 31937262 Available 31937262

Available online from MWHC library: 2001 - present

BACKGROUND: The design and execution of measurement in quality improvement (QI) initiatives is often poor. Better guidance on "what good looks like" might help to mitigate some of the problems. We report a consensus-building process that sought to identify which features are important to include in QI measurement plans.

CONCLUSIONS: This study offers a consensus-based view on the features of a good measurement plan for a QI project in healthcare. The results may be of use to QI teams, funders and evaluators, but are likely to require further development and testing to ensure feasibility and usefulness.

METHODS: We conducted a three-stage consensus-building approach: (1) identifying the list of features of measurement plans that were potential candidates for inclusion based on literature review and the study team's experience; (2) a two-round modified Delphi exercise with a panel of experts to establish consensus on the importance of these features; and (3) a small in-person consensus group meeting to finalise the list of features.

RESULTS: A list of 104 candidate questions was generated. A panel of 19 experts in the Delphi reviewed these questions and produced consensus on retaining 46 questions in the first round and on a further 22 in the second round. Thematic analysis of open text responses from the panellists suggested a number of areas of debate that were explicitly considered by the consensus group. The exercise yielded 74 questions (71% of 104) on which there was consensus in five categories of measurement relating to: design, data collection and management, analysis, action, and embedding.

English

Powered by Koha