scholarly journals Management of repository corticotrophin injection therapy for pulmonary sarcoidosis: a Delphi study

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (155) ◽  
pp. 190147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franck F. Rahaghi ◽  
Nadera J. Sweiss ◽  
Lesley Ann Saketkoo ◽  
Mary Beth Scholand ◽  
Joseph B. Barney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Pulmonary Sarcoidosis ◽  
Event Management ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Consensus Recommendations ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Immunosuppressive Medications ◽  
Starting Dose

In patients treated with repository corticotrophin injection (RCI) for pulmonary sarcoidosis, effective management of adverse events may improve adherence. However, management of adverse events may be challenging due to limitations in real-world clinical experience with RCI and available published guidelines.We surveyed 12 physicians with a modified Delphi process using three questionnaires. Questionnaire 1 consisted of open-ended questions. Panellists' answers were developed into a series of statements for Questionnaires 2 and 3. In these, physicians rated their agreement with the statements using a Likert scale.Key consensus recommendations included a starting dose of 40 units twice a week for patients with less severe disease, continued at a maintenance dose for patients who responded, particularly those with chronic refractory sarcoidosis. Panellists reached consensus that concomitant steroids should be quickly tapered in patients receiving RCI, but that concomitant use of immunosuppressive medications should be continued. Panellists developed consensus recommendations for adverse event management, and reached consensus that RCI should be down-titrated or discontinued if other interventions for the adverse effects fail or if the adverse effect is severe.In the absence of clinical evidence, our Delphi consensus opinions may provide practical guidance to physicians on the management of RCI to treat pulmonary sarcoidosis.

scholarly journals Recommendations for the clinical management of patients receiving macitentan for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH): A Delphi consensus document

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 702-711 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franck F. Rahaghi ◽  
Hassan M. Alnuaimat ◽  
Rana L.A. Awdish ◽  
Vijay P. Balasubramanian ◽  
Robert C. Bourge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Arterial Hypertension ◽  
Functional Class ◽  
Event Management ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Consensus Recommendations ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Consensus Document ◽  
Pulmonary Arterial

In patients treated with macitentan (Opsumit®, Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Basel, Switzerland) for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), prevention and/or effective management of treatment-related adverse events may improve adherence. However, management of these adverse events can be challenging and the base of evidence and clinical experience for macitentan is limited. In the absence of evidence, consensus recommendations from physicians experienced in using macitentan to treat PAH may benefit patients and physicians who are using macitentan. Consensus recommendations were developed by a panel of physicians experienced with macitentan and PAH using a modified Delphi process. Over three iterations, panelists developed and refined a series of statements on the use of macitentan in PAH and rated their agreement with each statement on a Likert scale. The panel of 18 physicians participated and developed a total of 118 statements on special populations, add-on therapy, drug–drug interactions, warnings and precautions, hospitalization and functional class, and adverse event management. The resulting consensus recommendations are intended to provide practical guidance on real-world issues in using macitentan to treat patients with PAH.

scholarly journals Areas of agreement in the management of childhood non-infectious chronic anterior uveitis in the UK

2019 ◽  
Vol 104 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ameenat Lola Solebo ◽  
Jugnoo S Rahi ◽  
Andrew D Dick ◽  
Athimalaipet V Ramanan ◽  
Jane Ashworth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Uveitis ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
The Uk ◽  
High Level

Background/aimsThere is a paucity of high-level evidence to support the management of childhood uveitis, particularly for those children without juvenile idiopathic arthritis uveitis (JIA). We undertook a modified Delphi consensus exercise to identify agreement in the management of chronic anterior uveitis (CAU), the most common manifestation of childhood disease.MethodsA four-round, two-panel process was undertaken between June and December 2017. Paediatric uveitis specialists identified through multiple sources, including a multicentre network (the Paediatric Ocular Inflammation Group), were invited to participate. They were asked whether they agreed with items derived from existing guidelines on the management of JIA-U when extrapolated to the population of all children with CAU. Consensus was defined as agreement greater than or equal to 75% of respondents.Results26 of the 38 (68%) invited specialists participated with the exercise, and response rates were 100% for rounds one to three, and 92% for round four. Consensus was reached on 23 of the 44 items. Items for which consensus was not reached included management at presentation, use of systemic and periocular steroids for children with severe disease and the role of conventional steroid sparing immunosuppressants beyond methotrexate.ConclusionThe areas of management uncertainty at the level of the group, as indicated by absence of consensus, reflect the areas where the evidence base is particularly poor. Our findings identify the key areas for the future research needed to ensure better outcomes for this blinding childhood ocular inflammatory disorders.

scholarly journals A balanced approach to identifying, prioritising and evaluating all potential consequences of quality improvement: modified Delphi study

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e023890 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madalina Toma ◽  
Tobias Dreischulte ◽  
Nicola M Gray ◽  
Bruce Guthrie
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Qualitative Evaluation ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Consensus Methods ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Balanced Approach ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Qualitative Work

ObjectivesHealthcare is a complex system, so quality improvement will commonly lead to unintended consequences which are rarely evaluated. In previous qualitative work, we proposed a framework for considering the range of these potential consequences, in terms of their desirability and the extent to which they were predictable or expected during planning. This paper elaborates on the previous findings, using consensus methods to examine what consequences should be identified, why and how to prioritise, evaluate and interpret all identified consequences, and what stakeholders should be involved throughout this process.DesignTwo-round modified Delphi consensus study.Setting and participantsBoth rounds were completed by 60 panellists from an academic, clinical or management background and experience in designing, implementing or evaluating quality improvement programmes.ResultsPanellists agreed that trade-offs (expected undesirable consequences) and unpleasant surprises (unexpected undesirable consequences) should be actively considered. Measurement of harmful consequences for patients, and those with high workload or financial impact was prioritised, and their evaluation could also involve the use of qualitative methods. Clinical teams were agreed as important to involve at all stages, from identifying potential consequences, prioritising which of those to systematically evaluate, undertaking appropriate evaluation and interpreting the findings. Patients were necessary in identifying consequences, managers in identifying and prioritising, and improvement advisors in interpreting the data.ConclusionThere was consensus that a balanced approach to considering all the consequences of improvement can be achieved by carefully considering predictable trade-offs from the outset and deliberately pausing after implementation to identify any unexpected surprises and make an informed decision as to whether quantitative or qualitative evaluation is needed and feasible. Stakeholders’ roles in in the process of identifying, prioritising, evaluating and interpreting potential consequences should be explicitly addressed within planning and revisited during and after implementation.

scholarly journals Expert opinion on the UK standard of care for haemophilia patients with inhibitors: a modified Delphi consensus study

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 204062072110070
Author(s):  
Kate Khair ◽  
Elizabeth Chalmers ◽  
Thuvia Flannery ◽  
Annabel Griffiths ◽  
Felicity Rowley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Delphi Study ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Tolerance Induction ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Steering Committee ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Bypassing Agents ◽  
The Uk

Background and Aims: Despite advances in haemophilia care, inhibitor development remains a significant complication. Although viable treatment options exist, there is some divergence of opinion in the appropriate standard approach to care and goals of treatment. The aim of this study was to assess consensus on United Kingdom (UK) standard of care for child and adult haemophilia patients with inhibitors. Methods: A modified Delphi study was conducted using a two-round online survey. A haemophilia expert steering committee and published literature informed the Round 1 questionnaire. Invited participants included haematologists, haemophilia nurses and physiotherapists who had treated at least one haemophilia patient with inhibitors in the past 5 years. Consensus for 6-point Likert scale questions was pre-defined as ⩾70% participants selecting 1–2 (disagreement) or 5–6 (agreement). Results: In all, 46.7% and 35.9% questions achieved consensus in Rounds 1 ( n = 41) and 2 ( n = 34), respectively. Consensus was reached on the importance of improving quality of life (QoL) and reaching clinical goals such as bleed prevention, eradication of inhibitors and pain management. There was agreement on criteria constituting adequate/inadequate responses to immune tolerance induction (ITI) and the appropriate factor VIII dose to address suboptimal ITI response. Opinions varied on treatment aims for adults and children/adolescents, when to offer prophylaxis with bypassing agents and expectations of prophylaxis. Consensus was also lacking on appropriate treatment for mild/moderate patients with inhibitors. Conclusion: UK healthcare professionals appear to be aligned on the clinical goals and role of ITI when managing haemophilia patients with inhibitors, although novel treatment developments may require reassessment of these goals. Lack of consensus on prophylaxis with bypassing agents and management of mild/moderate cases identifies a need for further research to establish more comprehensive, evidence-based treatment guidance, particularly for those patients who are unable/prefer not to receive non-factor therapies.

scholarly journals A Methodological Checklist for fMRI Drug Cue Reactivity Studies: Development and Expert Consensus

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamed Ekhtiari ◽  
Mehran Zare-Bidoky ◽  
Arshiya Sangchooli ◽  
Amy C. Janes ◽  
Marc J. Kaufman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Delphi Study ◽  
Cue Reactivity ◽  
Consensus Method ◽  
Functional Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Methodological Aspects ◽  
Drug Cue

AbstractBackgroundCue reactivity is one of the most frequently used paradigms in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of substance use disorders (SUDs). Although there have been many promising results elucidating the neurocognitive mechanisms of SUDs and SUD treatments, heterogeneities in participant characteristics, task design, craving assessment, scanning preparation and analysis decisions limit rigor and reproducibility in the field of fMRI of drug cue reactivity (FDCR), hampering clinical translation and synthesis by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The aim of this consensus paper and Delphi study is to outline the important methodological aspects of FDCR studies and present a list of items and recommendations that should be taken into account when designing FDCR studies and reporting their results.MethodsFifty-five FDCR scientists from around the world participated. First, an initial checklist of items deemed important in FDCR studies was developed by a group of members from the ENIGMA Addiction Consortium based on a systematic review. Then, using a modified Delphi consensus method, all experts were asked to comment on, revise or add items to the initial checklist. Subsequently, experts were asked to rate the importance of the items.ResultsThirty-seven items were proposed in the first round. After the commenting phase, seven new items suggested by experts were added and six were removed. The final 38 items that reached a defined consensus threshold in the rating phase were classified under seven categories and are considered important for conducting and reporting in any FDCR study.ConclusionThis paper proposes a list of items and additional recommendations that researchers in the field of FDCR are encouraged to note and report when designing an FDCR study and reporting its results. Along with the presentation of a quality control checklist with Yes/No ratable items, various challenges in moving towards greater homogeneity in FDCR research and widespread use of FDCR to investigate SUDs and develop clinically relevant biomarkers are discussed.

scholarly journals The factors influencing the effective early career and rapid transition to a nursing specialty in differing contexts of practice: a modified Delphi consensus study

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e028541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Chamberlain ◽  
Desley Hegney ◽  
Clare Harvey ◽  
Bruce Knight ◽  
Anne Garrahy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Delphi Study ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Final Model ◽  
Transition Processes ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Rapid Transition ◽  
Time Continuum

ObjectivesThis study aimed to test and further develop the ‘Early Career and Rapid Transition to a Nursing Specialty’ (TRANSPEC) model to a nursing specialty developed from a systematic review. Semi-structured interviews of specialist clinically based nurses and a consensus Delphi study with an expert panel were used to expand and achieve consensus, agreement, reliability and stability of the model.DesignA modified Delphi, two rounds (64 and 52 Likert items) of reiterative online questionnaires and one round as a nominal group technique, was informed by qualitative thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews.Setting and participantsInterviews with 14 specialists clinical practicing registered nurses and a panel of 25 national experts participated in the Delphi study.ResultsThe interview participants experienced 14 rapid transitions and three were early career transition. The overarching themes from the preliminary model were confirmed and further expanded. These were the self (personal and professional); the transition processes (final and informal); a sense of belonging; and the overarching context of practice over a time continuum. In the Delphi, the highest rating item was ‘Specialty work colleagues respect, include, support, and accept specialist nurse on completion of transition processes’. Pre-entry was highlighted as an important time point prior to transition. All items reaching consensus were included in the final model. Cronbach α increased from 0.725 to 0.875 for the final model.ConclusionsThe TRANSPEC model is a valid and reliable evidence-based tool for use in the career pathway and development of nursing specialists. Using the Benner model ‘Novice to Expert’ after the novice incomer phase is achieved, further lifelong learning development will transform the novice specialist over time continuum.

Defining adverse events in manual therapies: A modified Delphi consensus study

2010 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawn Carnes ◽  
Brenda Mullinger ◽  
Martin Underwood
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Manual Therapies ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Modified Delphi

scholarly journals SP2.1.11Real-world use of workplace-based assessments in surgical training: a UK nationwide exploration of trainee perspectives and consensus recommendations from the Association of Surgeons in Training

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
A.J. Beamish ◽  
M Rabie ◽  
M.J. Johnston ◽  
D Nally ◽  
G Humm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Training ◽  
Annual Review ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
Consensus Recommendations ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Surgical Trainees ◽  
Training Standards ◽  
The Will

Abstract Background The utility of Workplace-Based Assessments (WBAs) in surgical training depends on the way they are completed. This study aims to ascertain the real-world usage of WBAs, as perceived by UK surgical trainees. Methods An anonymous national online questionnaire was conducted via the Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT). The evaluation employed mixed methods to interpret quantitative and qualitative data. Suggestions for improvement were identified from free-text comments and considered through a formal two-round modified Delphi consensus process by ASiT council members. Results Analysis included 906 complete responses from all surgical specialities across all training levels. WBA use was perceived to deviate markedly from the Joint Committee on Surgical Training standards with significantly identified misuse across all surgical specialities. Inaccurate completion was acknowledged by 89.6% of respondents, and some trainers appear complicit with 40.9% of respondents aware of 'unobserved sign-off', and 33.6% aware of 'password disclosure' by trainers. Most trainees felt the Annual Review of Competency Progression (ARCP) respected WBA quantity above quality (55.4%), and a third felt pressure to overstate the number completed (32.0%). Main reasons for misuse were time restraints, lack of engagement and the will to achieve career progression targets. Conclusions UK surgical trainees perceive a significant deviation from WBAs standards due to multiple factors. The frequency and nature of misuse are worrying and undermines the existing evidence for the WBAs role in training. We present consensus recommendations from ASiT for the improvement of WBA use in UK surgical training.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document