Consensus minimum data set for lung cancer multidisciplinary teams: Results of a Delphi process

Rankin, Nicole; Phillips, Jane; Fong, Kwun M.; Currow, David C.; Miller, Alistair; Largey, Geraldine; Zielinski, Robert; Flynn, P.W.; Shaw, Tim

doi:10.1111/resp.13307

Cited by 26 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(45 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We used a modified Delphi [14][15][16] process consisting of two electronic survey rounds, followed by an in-person panel meeting, to define an international MDS for vascular access practice and outcome measurement. 17 The aim of this Delphi process was to devise a final MDS and accompanying device nomenclature that (1) support evidence-based practice, (2) are pragmatic to collect and valuable to the health service and (3) facilitate benchmarking and practice evaluation and improve practice.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

International recommendations for a vascular access minimum dataset: a Delphi consensus-building study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundData regarding vascular access device use and outcomes are limited. In part, this gap reflects the absence of guidance on what variables should be collected to assess patient outcomes. We sought to derive international consensus on a vascular access minimum dataset.MethodsA modified Delphi study with three rounds (two electronic surveys and a face-to-face consensus panel) was conducted involving international vascular access specialists. In Rounds 1 and 2, electronic surveys were distributed to healthcare professionals specialising in vascular access. Survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of variables, feasibility of data collection and acceptability of items, definitions and response options. In Round 3, a purposive expert panel met to review Round 1 and 2 ratings and reach consensus (defined as ≥70% agreement) on the final items to be included in a minimum dataset for vascular access devices.ResultsA total of 64 of 225 interdisciplinary healthcare professionals from 11 countries responded to Round 1 and 2 surveys (response rate of 34% and 29%, respectively). From the original 52 items, 50 items across five domains emerged from the Delphi procedure.Items related to demographic and clinical characteristics (n=5; eg, age), device characteristics (n=5; eg, device type), insertion (n=16; eg, indication), management (n=9; eg, dressing and securement), and complication and removal (n=15, eg, occlusion) were identified as requirements for a minimum dataset to track and evaluate vascular access device use and outcomes.ConclusionWe developed and internally validated a minimum dataset for vascular access device research. This study generated new knowledge to enable healthcare systems to collect relevant, useful and meaningful vascular access data. Use of this standardised approach can help benchmark clinical practice and target improvements worldwide.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

International recommendations for a vascular access minimum dataset: a Delphi consensus-building study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data linkage to other sources can enhance this further . Widespread database standardization has not yet emerged although recommendations for specific data sets have been published …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Australia, the Queensland Oncology On‐Line (QOOL) data system presents “just‐in‐time” MDT data analyses and in Taiwan links between MDT data and national registries facilitate in‐depth outcome analyses . The Australian MDT Dataset for lung cancer was developed by our group through a modified Delphi consensus process with local implementation. In other tumor streams, data capture and usage also vary.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical impact of data feedback at lung cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: A mixed methods study

Rankin

Vinod

Nagarajah

et al. 2019

Asia-Pac J Clncl Oncology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings can facilitate optimal lung cancer care, yet details of structured data collection and feedback remain sparse. This study aimed to investigate data collection and the impact of feedback to lung cancer MDTs. Methods:A mixed-methods study using pre and post-test surveys, semistructured interviews, and observation to evaluate data collection and response to modeled data feedback in three Australian lung cancer MDTs at different locations and development stage (site A: outer metropolitan, established; site B, outer metropolitan, new; and site C, inner metropolitan, established). Results: MDT attendees (range 13-25) discussed 5-8 cases per meeting. All sites collected data prospectively (80% prepopulated) into local oncology medical information systems. The pretest survey had 17 respondents in total (88% clinicians). At sites A and C, 100% of respondents noted regular data audits, occasional at site B. Regular audit data included number of cases, stage, final diagnosis, and time to diagnosis and treatment. The post-test survey had 25 respondents in total, all clinicians. The majority (88-96%) of respondents found modeled data easy to interpret, relevant to clinical practice and the MDT, and welcomed future regular data presentations (as rated on a 5-point Likert scale mean weighted average 4.5 where > 4 demonstrates agreement). Semistructured interviews identified five major themes for MDTs: current practice, attitudes, enablers, barriers, and benefits for the MDT.Conclusions: MDT teams exhibited positive responses to modeled data feedback. Key characteristics of MDT data were identified and may assist with future team research and development. K E Y W O R D S data feedback, data quality, health data, lung neoplasm, multidisciplinary teams Asia-Pac J Clin Oncol. 2020;16:45-55. c

show abstract

“…at 6 months included two respiratory screening tools, 1) a 50-item respiratory questionnaire (31) and 2) an 18-item respiratory adapted into Creole (32) as well as a clinical assessment form developed for the purpose of the larger study. A development screening tool with an adapted version for remote Indigenous communities was also identified (33,34) agreement (26,35). Items progressed to round three if agreement was between 50 and 80% and omitted if below 50%.…”

Section: Questionnaire Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Respiratory, birth and health economic measures for use with Indigenous Australian infants in a research trial: A modified Delphi with an Indigenous panel

Perkes

Bonevski

Mattes

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is significant disparity between the respiratory health of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian infants. There is no culturally accepted measure to collect respiratory health outcomes in Indigenous infants. The aim of this study was to gain end user and expert consensus on the most relevant and acceptable respiratory and birth measures for Indigenous infants at birth, between birth and 6 months, and at 6 months of age follow-up for use in a research trial. Methods: A three round modified Delphi process was conducted from February 2018 to April 2019. Eight Indigenous panel members, and 18 Indigenous women participated. Items reached consensus if 7/8 (≥80 %) panel members indicated the item was ‘very essential’. Qualitative responses by Indigenous women and the panel were used to modify the 6 months of age surveys. Results: In total, 15 items for birth, 48 items from 1 to 6 months, and five potential questionnaires for use at 6 months of age were considered. Of those, 15 measures for birth were accepted, i.e., gestational age, birth weight, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) admissions, length, head circumference, sex, Apgar score, substance use, cord blood gas values, labour, birth type, health of the mother, number people living in the home, education of mother and place of residence. Seventeen measures from 1-to 6 months of age were accepted, i.e., acute respiratory symptoms (7), general health items (2), health care utilisation (6), exposure to tobacco smoke (1) and breastfeeding status (1). Three questionnaires for use at 6 months of age were accepted, i.e., a shortened 33-item respiratory questionnaire, a clinical history survey and a developmental questionnaire. Conclusions: In a modified Delphi process with an Indigenous panel, measures and items were proposed for use to assess respiratory, birth and health economic outcomes in Indigenous Australian infants between birth and 6 months of age. This initial step can be used to develop a set of relevant and acceptable measures to report respiratory illness and birth outcomes in community based Indigenous infants.

show abstract

Consensus minimum data set for lung cancer multidisciplinary teams: Results of a Delphi process

Cited by 26 publications

References 28 publications

International recommendations for a vascular access minimum dataset: a Delphi consensus-building study

International recommendations for a vascular access minimum dataset: a Delphi consensus-building study

Clinical impact of data feedback at lung cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: A mixed methods study

Respiratory, birth and health economic measures for use with Indigenous Australian infants in a research trial: A modified Delphi with an Indigenous panel

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About