Address correspondence to Sheryl Davies, M.A., Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University CHP/PCOR, 117 Encina Commons, Stanford, CA 94305-6019; e-mail: email@example.com. Patrick S. Romano, M.D., M.P.H., is with the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, Division of General Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Davis, CA. Eric M. Schmidt, B.A., Ellen Schultz, M.S., Kathryn M. McDonald, M.M., are with the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Jeffrey J. Geppert, J.D., Med., is with the Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation, Battelle Memorial Institute, Sacramento, CA.
Assessment of a Novel Hybrid Delphi and Nominal Groups Technique to Evaluate Quality Indicators
Article first published online: 25 JUL 2011
© Health Research and Educational Trust
Health Services Research
Volume 46, Issue 6pt1, pages 2005–2018, December 2011
How to Cite
Davies, S., Romano, P. S., Schmidt, E. M., Schultz, E., Geppert, J. J. and McDonald, K. M. (2011), Assessment of a Novel Hybrid Delphi and Nominal Groups Technique to Evaluate Quality Indicators. Health Services Research, 46: 2005–2018. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01297.x
- Issue published online: 16 NOV 2011
- Article first published online: 25 JUL 2011
- Quality indicators;
- Delphi method;
- Nominal Group technique
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.