Abstract
Objective. To test the implementation of a novel structured panel process in the evaluation of quality indicators. Data Source. National panel of 64 clinicians rating usefulness of indicator applications in 2008-2009. Study Design. Hybrid panel combined Delphi Group and Nominal Group (NG) techniques to evaluate 81 indicator applications. Principal Findings. The Delphi Group and NG rated 56 percent of indicator applications similarly. Group assignment (Delphi versus Nominal) was not significantly associated with mean ratings, but specialty and research interests of panelists, and indicator factors such as denominator level and proposed use were. Rating distributions narrowed significantly in 20.8 percent of applications between review rounds. Conclusions. The hybrid panel process facilitated information exchange and tightened rating distributions. Future assessments of this method might include a control panel.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 2005-2018 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | Health Services Research |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue number | 6 PART 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Dec 2011 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Delphi method
- Nominal Group technique
- Quality indicators
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Health Policy
Cite this
Assessment of a novel hybrid Delphi and nominal groups technique to evaluate quality indicators. / Davies, Sheryl; Romano, Patrick S; Schmidt, Eric M.; Schultz, Ellen; Geppert, Jeffrey J.; McDonald, Kathryn M.
In: Health Services Research, Vol. 46, No. 6 PART 1, 12.2011, p. 2005-2018.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessment of a novel hybrid Delphi and nominal groups technique to evaluate quality indicators
AU - Davies, Sheryl
AU - Romano, Patrick S
AU - Schmidt, Eric M.
AU - Schultz, Ellen
AU - Geppert, Jeffrey J.
AU - McDonald, Kathryn M.
PY - 2011/12
Y1 - 2011/12
N2 - Objective. To test the implementation of a novel structured panel process in the evaluation of quality indicators. Data Source. National panel of 64 clinicians rating usefulness of indicator applications in 2008-2009. Study Design. Hybrid panel combined Delphi Group and Nominal Group (NG) techniques to evaluate 81 indicator applications. Principal Findings. The Delphi Group and NG rated 56 percent of indicator applications similarly. Group assignment (Delphi versus Nominal) was not significantly associated with mean ratings, but specialty and research interests of panelists, and indicator factors such as denominator level and proposed use were. Rating distributions narrowed significantly in 20.8 percent of applications between review rounds. Conclusions. The hybrid panel process facilitated information exchange and tightened rating distributions. Future assessments of this method might include a control panel.
AB - Objective. To test the implementation of a novel structured panel process in the evaluation of quality indicators. Data Source. National panel of 64 clinicians rating usefulness of indicator applications in 2008-2009. Study Design. Hybrid panel combined Delphi Group and Nominal Group (NG) techniques to evaluate 81 indicator applications. Principal Findings. The Delphi Group and NG rated 56 percent of indicator applications similarly. Group assignment (Delphi versus Nominal) was not significantly associated with mean ratings, but specialty and research interests of panelists, and indicator factors such as denominator level and proposed use were. Rating distributions narrowed significantly in 20.8 percent of applications between review rounds. Conclusions. The hybrid panel process facilitated information exchange and tightened rating distributions. Future assessments of this method might include a control panel.
KW - Delphi method
KW - Nominal Group technique
KW - Quality indicators
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=81755161513&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=81755161513&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01297.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01297.x
M3 - Article
VL - 46
SP - 2005
EP - 2018
JO - Health Services Research
JF - Health Services Research
SN - 0017-9124
IS - 6 PART 1
ER -