Get access

Assessment of a Novel Hybrid Delphi and Nominal Groups Technique to Evaluate Quality Indicators

Authors

  • Sheryl Davies,

    1. Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University CHP/PCOR, 117 Encina Commons, Stanford, CA 94305-6019
    Search for more papers by this author
    • 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: smdavies@stanford.edu. 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.

  • Patrick S. Romano,

    1. Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, Division of General Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis, Davis, CA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Eric M. Schmidt,

    1. Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Ellen Schultz,

    1. Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Jeffrey J. Geppert,

    1. Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation, Battelle Memorial Institute, Sacramento, CA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Kathryn M. McDonald

    1. Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
    Search for more papers by this author

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.

Ancillary