Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2026
Developing Consensus for Colorectal QI Research: A Delphi Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Obi Megan, Kanters Arielle, Gunter Rebecca, Holubar Stefan D, Steele Scott, Liska David, Ban Kristen, Collaborators
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Data are essential to guide meaningful quality improvement (QI) in colorectal surgery. The goal of this Delphi study is to achieve consensus from experts on which data are most important to guide quality improvement efforts in colorectal surgery.
STUDY DESIGN: A two- round modified Delphi study via survey questionnaire was conducted using a panel of 34 colorectal surgeon experts. Scoring was done with a 9-point Likert scale. A median score ≥7 defined consensus and a median score of ≤3 was defined as inappropriate.
RESULTS: Response rate after each round was 61.8% (21/34) and 90.5% (19/21) respectively. Of the 63 outcome and process measures analyzed at the end of round 2, consensus was reached on a total of 52 (73.2%) process and outcome measures and 3 (4.2%) were deemed inappropriate.
CONCLUSION: Measures achieving the highest consensus were outcomes that are collected in NSQIP. Additional unexpected process measures were also highly valued amongst experts. Hospitals participating in NSQIP can add these data elements as custom variables to engage in more targeted, meaningful QI projects as appropriate.
STUDY DESIGN: A two- round modified Delphi study via survey questionnaire was conducted using a panel of 34 colorectal surgeon experts. Scoring was done with a 9-point Likert scale. A median score ≥7 defined consensus and a median score of ≤3 was defined as inappropriate.
RESULTS: Response rate after each round was 61.8% (21/34) and 90.5% (19/21) respectively. Of the 63 outcome and process measures analyzed at the end of round 2, consensus was reached on a total of 52 (73.2%) process and outcome measures and 3 (4.2%) were deemed inappropriate.
CONCLUSION: Measures achieving the highest consensus were outcomes that are collected in NSQIP. Additional unexpected process measures were also highly valued amongst experts. Hospitals participating in NSQIP can add these data elements as custom variables to engage in more targeted, meaningful QI projects as appropriate.