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.