Grappling With the Inclusion of Patients and the Public in Consensus Building: A Commentary on Inclusion, Safety, and Accessibility; Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study".

Deliberative dialogue (DD) may be relatively new in health research but has a rich history in fostering public engagement in political issues. Dialogic approaches are future-facing, comprising structured discussions and consensus building activities geared to the collective identification of actionable and contextualized solutions. Relying heavily on a need for coproduction and shared leadership, these approaches seek to garner meaningful collaborations between researchers and knowledge users, such as healthcare providers, decision-makers, patients, and the public. In this commentary, we explore some of the challenges, successes, and opportunities arising from public engagement in DD, drawing also upon insights gleaned from our own research, along with the case study presented by Scurr and colleagues. Specifically, we seek to expand discussions related to inclusion, power, and accessibility in DD, highlight the need for scholarship that addresses the epistemic, methodological, and practical aspects of patient and public engagement within dialogic methods, and identify promising practices.

Group concept mapping for health professions education scholarship.

While explicit conceptual models help to inform research, they are left out of much of the health professions education (HPE) literature. One reason may be the limited understanding about how to develop conceptual models with intention and rigor. Group concept mapping (GCM) is a mixed methods conceptualization approach that has been used to develop frameworks for planning and evaluation, but GCM has not been common in HPE. The purpose of this article is to describe GCM in order to make it more accessible for HPE scholars. We recount the origins and evolution of GCM and summarize its core features: GCM can combine multiple stakeholder perspectives in a systematic and inclusive manner to generate explicit conceptual models. Based on the literature and prior experience using GCM, we detail seven steps in GCM: (1) brainstorming ideas to a specific "focus prompt," (2) preparing ideas by removing duplicates and editing for consistency, (3) sorting ideas according to conceptual similarity, (4) generating the point map through quantitative analysis, (5) interpreting cluster map options, (6) summarizing the final concept map, and (7) reporting and using the map. We provide illustrative examples from HPE studies and compare GCM to other conceptualization methods. GCM has great potential to add to the myriad of methodologies open to HPE researchers. Its alignment with principles of diversity and inclusivity, as well as the need to be systematic in applying theoretical and conceptual frameworks to practice, make it a method well suited for the complexities of contemporary HPE scholarship.

A case study of using community-based consensus methods to facilitate shared decision-making among a spinal cord injury network.

Spinal cord injury (SCI) research and policy decisions are rarely made in partnership with people with SCI, making them less relevant, applicable, and used by those whom the decisions are intended to support. Across disciplines, consensus methods have been promoted as a viable solution for supporting shared research and policy-based decision-making. In this paper, we describe a partnered approach between academic researchers and the Ontario SCI Alliance, a non-profit, SCI community mobilization network to co-develop and co-disseminate a community-based consensus exercise. The community-based consensus exercise included two modified Delphi surveys and one in-person retreat. The partnership's goal with this exercise was to facilitate shared decision-making for the development of their upcoming strategic plan. We then interviewed partners and participants from the Delphi and in-person retreat to discuss successes, challenges, and lessons learned from the exercise. Survey 1 was disseminated to over 2,500 members of the Ontario SCI community and received 374 responses (276 coming from people with SCI). Survey 2 had 118 responses, with 87 coming from people with SCI. The retreat had 73 attendees, including people with SCI, family/friends of people with SCI, clinicians, researchers, and SCI community and research organization staff/volunteers. The retreat included a presentation of the survey results, a clinician/researcher panel, and externally-facilitated working groups. All survey responses and retreat materials were synthesized. Using the synthesized feedback, the Ontario SCI Alliance was able to implement several changes for the Ontario SCI community, including higher-quality primary care experiences (reduced wait times, more accessible examining rooms), the development of a wound care strategy with the Ontario government, and an advocacy campaign for public coverage for catheters and urinary care supplies. From the five interviews conducted, five themes were co-constructed regarding the successes, challenges, and lessons learned from the exercise: (1) Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility; (2) Partnership; (3) Design Considerations; (4) Transparency and Clarity in Communication; and (5) Sustainability. Findings from this community case study demonstrate the feasibility of conducting a community-level consensus exercise among an equity-deserving group while providing detailed guidance for how to ensure future research and policy-based decision-making is shared across diverse knowledge users.

Lost in translation: a narrative review and synthesis of the published international literature on mental health research and translation priorities (2011-2023).

BACKGROUND: Priority setting in mental health research is arguably lost in translation. Decades of effort has led to persistent repetition in what the research priorities of people with lived-experience of mental ill-health are. AIM: This was a narrative review and synthesis of published literature reporting mental health research priorities (2011-2023). METHODS: A narrative framework was established with the questions: (1) who has been involved in priority setting? With whom have priorities been set? Which priorities have been established and for whom? What progress has been made? And, whose priorities are being progressed? RESULTS: Seven papers were identified. Two were Australian, one Welsh, one English, one was from Chile and another Brazilian and one reported on a European exercise across 28 countries (ROAMER). Hundreds of priorities were listed in all exercises. Prioritisation mostly occured from survey rankings and/or workshops (using dots, or post-it note voting). Most were dominated by clinicians, academics and government rather than people with lived-experience of mental ill-health and carer, family and kinship group members. CONCLUSION: One lived-experience research led survey was identified. Few studies reported lived-experience design and development involvement. Five of the seven papers reported responses, but no further progress on priorities being met was reported.

This review followed PRISMA guidance for search strategy development and systematic review and reporting. This was not a systematic review with or without meta-analysis and the method did not fit for registration with PROSPERO.

Consensus for a primary care clinical decision-making tool for assessing, diagnosing, and managing low back pain in Alberta, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition causing disability and high healthcare costs. Alberta faces challenges with unnecessary referrals to specialists and long wait times. A province-wide standardized clinical care pathway based on evidence-based best practices can improve efficiency, reduce wait times, and enhance patient outcomes. Implementing such pathways has shown success in other areas of healthcare in Alberta. This study developed a clinical decision-making pathway to standardize care and minimize uncertainty in assessment, diagnosis, and management. METHODS: A systematic rapid review identified existing tools and evidence that could support a comprehensive LBP clinical decision-making tool. Forty-seven healthcare professionals participated in four rounds of a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on the assessment, diagnosis, and management of patients presenting to primary care with LBP in Alberta, Canada. This project was a collaborative effort between Alberta Health Services' Bone and Joint Health Strategic Clinical Network (BJHSCN) and the Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute (ABJHI). RESULTS: A province-wide expert panel consisting of professionals from different health disciplines and regions collaborated to develop an LBP clinical decision-making tool. This tool presents clinical care pathways for acute, subacute, and chronic LBP. It also provides guidance for history-taking, physical examination, patient education, and management. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical decision-making tool will help to standardize care, provide guidance on the diagnosis and management of LBP, and assist in clinical decision-making for primary care providers in both public and private sectors.

Patient reported outcomes in brachial plexus birth injury: results from the iPLUTO world-wide consensus survey.

PURPOSE: Brachial plexus birth injuries (BPBI) can have lifelong effects on the development and functional use of the upper extremity. Currently there is no agreement with regards to what patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures should be used. Therefore, the ability to compare the effects of treatment between individuals and institutions is challenging. This study aimed to achieve consensus among clinicians on the use of PRO measures within this patient group to allow for improved comparison of treatments and outcomes in the future. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Online, a 3 round Delphi survey was completed by 35 international multi-disciplinary specialist centers. RESULTS: All respondents (100%) agreed that PRO measures are useful for clinical evaluation and patient treatment. None of the outcome measures scored >75% agreement for ability to assess responsiveness and current state in children with BPBI as most outcome measures were judged as not specific for BPBI. Additionally, participant centers were asked their perspective on the best available PRO option for each of the 3 categories: functional use of the upper limb, quality of life and pain. This resulted in endorsement by the participant centers of the Brachial Plexus Outcome Measure - Self-Evaluation, the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, and Visual Analogue Scale/Brief Pain Inventory respectively. CONCLUSION: International specialists in BPBI agree that PRO measures are important to use both clinically and in research in children aged 5 years and above.

Patient-reported outcome measures were judged as useful both in clinic and in research for brachial plexus birth injury (BPBI), according to a panel of specialized centers.Currently available outcome measures were judged as not specific for BPBI.The panel endorsed the following measures as best available: the Brachial Plexus Outcome Measure ­ Self-Evaluation scale for functional evaluation, the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory for disease-related quality of life and the Faces Pain Scale - Revised/Visual Analogue Scale/Brief Pain Inventory for pain.

Nationwide consensus on quality indicators to assess glaucoma care: A modified Delphi approach.

PURPOSE: Performance assessments are essential to tracking and improving quality in health care systems. Key aspects of the care process that act as indicators must be measured in order to gain an in-depth understanding of a care unit's operation. Without standardized quality indicators (QIs), it is difficult to characterize and compare the abilities of institutions to achieve excellence. The aim of this study is to reach a consensus among glaucoma specialists concerning the development of a set of QIs to assess the performance of glaucoma care units. METHODS: A two-round Delphi technique was performed among glaucoma specialists in Portugal, using a 7-point Likert scale. Fifty-three initial statements (comprising process, structure, and outcome indicators) were evaluated and participants had to agree on which ones would be part of the final set of QIs. RESULTS: By the end of both rounds, 28 glaucoma specialists reached consensus on 30/53 (57%) statements, including 19 (63%) process indicators (mainly relating to the proper implementation of complementary exams and the setting of follow-up intervals), 6 (20%) structure indicators, and 5 (17%) outcome indicators. Of the indicators that were part of the final list, functional and structural aspects of glaucoma progression and the availability of surgical/laser procedures were the most prevalent. CONCLUSIONS: A set of 30 QIs for measuring the performance of glaucoma units was developed using a consensus methodology involving experts in the field. Their use as measurement standards would provide important information about unit operations and allow further implementation of quality improvements.

Development of recommendations for a minimum dataset for Identifying Social factors that Stratify Health Opportunities and Outcomes (ISSHOOs) in pain research.

There is increasing recognition of the need for researchers to collect and report data that can illuminate health inequities. In pain research, routinely collecting equity-relevant data has the potential to inform about the generalisability of findings; whether the intervention has differential effects across strata of society; or it could be used to guide population targeting for clinical studies. Developing clarity and consensus on what data should be collected and how to collect it is required to prompt researchers to further consider equity issues in the planning, conduct, interpretation, and reporting of research. The overarching aim of the 'Identifying Social Factors that Stratify Health Opportunities and Outcomes' (ISSHOOs) in pain research project is to provide researchers in the pain field with recommendations to guide the routine collection of equity-relevant data. The design of this project is consistent with the methods outlined in the 'Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines' and involves 4 stages: (i) Scoping review; (ii) Delphi Study; (iii) Consensus Meeting; and (iv) Focus Groups. This stakeholder-engaged project will produce a minimum dataset that has global, expert consensus. Results will be disseminated along with explanation and elaboration as a crucial step towards facilitating future action to address avoidable disparities in pain outcomes.

Design and validation of indicators for the comprehensive measurement of quality of care for type 2 diabetes and acute respiratory infections in ambulatory health services.

Developing ambulatory health services (AHS) of optimal quality is a pending issue for many health systems at a global level, especially in middle- and low-income countries. An effective health response requires indicators to measure the quality of care that are context-specific and feasible for routine monitoring. This paper aimed to design and validate indicators for assessing the technical and interpersonal quality dimensions for type 2 diabetes (T2D) and acute respiratory infections (ARI) care in AHS. The study was conducted in two stages. First, technical and user-centered-based indicators of quality of care for T2D and ARI care were designed following international recommendations, mainly from the American Diabetes Association standards and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. We then assessed the validity, reliability, relevance, and feasibility of the proposed indicators implementing the modified Delphi technique. A panel of 17 medical experts from five countries scored the indicators using two electronic questionnaires, one for each reason for consultation selected, sent by email in two sequential rounds of rating. We defined the levels of consensus according to the overall median for each performance category, which was established as the threshold. Selected indicators included those with scores equal to or higher than the threshold. We designed 36 T2D indicators, of which 16 were validated for measuring the detection of risks and complications, glycemic control, pharmacological treatment, and patient-centered care. Out of the 22 indicators designed for ARI, we validated 10 for diagnosis, appropriate prescription of antimicrobials, and patient-centered care. The validated indicators showed consistency for the dimensions analyzed. Hence, they proved to be a potentially reliable and valuable tool for monitoring the performance of the various T2D and ARI care processes in AHS. Further research will be needed to verify the applicability of the validated indicators in routine clinical practice.

A protocol for the development of core outcome sets for effectiveness trials and clinical audits in renal cell cancer (R-COS).

Background: There is inconsistency in outcomes collected in renal cell cancer (RCC) intervention effectiveness studies and variability in their definitions. This makes critical summaries of the evidence base difficult and sub-optimally informative for clinical practice guidelines and decision-making by patients and healthcare professionals. A solution is to develop a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials in a clinical area. Objectives: To develop three COS for (a) localised, (b) locally advanced and (c) metastatic. RCC study design participants and methods: The methods are the same for each of our three COS and are structured in two phases. Phase 1 identifies potentially relevant outcomes by conducting both a systematic literature review and patient interviews (N ~ 30 patients). Qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis. In phase 2, all outcomes identified in phase 1 will be entered in a modified eDelphi, whereby patients and healthcare professionals (50 of each) will score each outcome's importance (Likert scale from 1 [not important] to 9 [critically important]). Outcomes scored in the 7-9 range by ≥70% and 1-3 by ≤15% will be regarded as 'consensus in', and the vice versa of this will constitute 'consensus out'. All other combinations will be regarded as equivocal and discussed at consensus meetings (including 10 patients and 10 healthcare professionals) in order to vote on them and ratify the results of the eDelphi. Discussion: The R-COS will reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity and improve the evidence base for RCC. Study registration: The study is registered with the COMET initiative: https://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1406.

Committee experiences of using formal consensus in healthcare guidelines: a longitudinal qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: This feasibility study has the primary aim of capturing and comparing participant expectations and experiences of using a formal consensus method (FCM) and to explore whether these views change following participation within a guideline committee where FCM are used. METHODS: Twelve healthcare committee members and associated technical team members participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews before and after using FCM during guideline committee meetings. Interviews also focused on past experiences and expectations of informal consensus methods. RESULTS: Participants said formal consensus included a greater range of evidence. They described positive reactions and found it a useful way to encourage involvement by balancing group power dynamics. Group discussion time was identified as important to clarify ideas, supported by good group chairing. However, participants reported that undertaking FCM required additional resources and suggested targeting its use for low quality evidence, limited committee expertise, or where the evidence is controversial. CONCLUSIONS: FCM is an acceptable alternative to informal consensus methods that has qualities specifically helpful to healthcare guidelines such as encouraging participation, inclusivity of a broad range of evidence, and managing group dynamics. More research is required to better understand when using formal consensus is most appropriate and effective.

Stakeholders' priorities in the development of evidence-based practice competencies in rehabilitation students: a nominal group technique study.

PURPOSE: Clinically integrated teaching (CIT) is an effective approach for promoting evidence-based practice (EBP) competencies among medical students. Challenges towards the implementation of CIT in rehabilitation curricula include educators' different conceptualizations of EBP, the perceived complexity of EBP and the boundaries between the academic and the clinical setting. This study aimed to identify tailored strategies to implement in rehabilitation programs and their affiliated clinical sites to support the development of EBP competencies among students in occupational therapy (OT), physical therapy (PT) and speech-language pathology (S-LP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nominal group technique (NGT) with stakeholders from three rehabilitation programs in Canada, offering the professional master's in OT and PT (n = 35 participants) and in S-LP (n = 8). RESULTS: The top two strategies identified in the OT/PT NGT were: 1) Developing a flexible definition of EBP that recognizes its complexity; 2) Providing clinicians with more access to the teaching content by pairing faculty with preceptors. The top two strategies identified in the S-LP NGT were: 1) Providing students with opportunities for decision-making with experienced clinicians; 2) Increasing interactions between faculty and preceptors using formal group meetings. CONCLUSION: Findings laid foundations for future integrated knowledge translation projects to collaboratively implement, and test identified strategies.

Rehabilitation professions including occupational therapy, physical therapy and speech-language pathology acknowledge the importance of evidence-based practice (EBP).Current challenges in the teaching of EBP among rehabilitation students include educators' different conceptualizations of EBP, the perceived complexity of EBP, and the boundaries between the academic and the clinical setting.This study shows that increasing interactions between faculty and preceptors, for instance through an online community of practice, constitutes a stakeholder-endorsed priority to advance EBP education in rehabilitation.

Visualizing incompatibilities in phylogenetic trees using consensus outlines.

Phylogenetic analysis frequently leads to the creation of many phylogenetic trees, either from using multiple genes or methods, or through bootstrapping or Bayesian analysis. A consensus tree is often used to summarize what the trees have in common. Consensus networks were introduced to also allow the visualization of the main incompatibilities among the trees. However, in practice, such networks often contain a large number of nodes and edges, and can be non-planar, making them difficult to interpret. Here, we introduce the new concept of a phylogenetic consensus outline, which provides a planar visualization of incompatibilities in the input trees, without the complexities of a consensus network. Furthermore, we present an effective algorithm for its computation. We demonstrate its usage and explore how it compares to other methods on a Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of languages using data from a published database and on multiple gene trees from a published study on water lilies.

Clinical recommendations for chronic musculoskeletal pain in South African primary health care.

BACKGROUND: Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP) is prevalent globally and places a significant burden on individuals, healthcare systems and economies. Contextually appropriate clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on CMSP are advocated to translate evidence into practice. AIM: This study aimed to investigate the applicability and feasibility of evidence-based CPG recommendations for adults with CMSP in the primary health care (PHC) sector of South Africa (SA). SETTING: The PHC sector in South Africa (SA). METHODS: Consensus methodology was used, comprising two online Delphi rounds and a consensus meeting. A multidisciplinary panel of local healthcare professionals involved in CMSP management was purposefully sampled and invited to participate. The first Delphi survey considered 43 recommendations. In the consensus meeting, the results of the first Delphi round were discussed. The second Delphi round reconsidered the recommendations with no consensus. RESULTS: Seventeen experts participated in the first Delphi round, 13 in the consensus meeting and 14 in the second Delphi round. In Delphi round two, 40 recommendations were endorsed, three were not endorsed and an additional recommendation was added. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary panel endorsed 41 multimodal clinical recommendations as applicable and feasible for the PHC of adults with CMSP, in SA. Although certain recommendations were endorsed, they may not be readily implementable in SA because of context factors.Contribution: The study forms the basis of a model of care for contextually relevant PHC of CMSP. Future research should explore factors that could influence the uptake of the recommendations into practice to optimise chronic pain care in SA.

[Health policy priorities. SESPAS meeting at the XXXIII School of Public Health of Menorca]. / Prioridades de políticas de salud. Encuentro SESPAS en la XXXIII Escuela de Salud Pública de Menorca.

OBJECTIVE: In September 2022, the Sociedad Española de Salud Pública y Administración Sanitaria (SESPAS) brought together a panel of experts with the aim of defining and prioritizing health policy proposals, from the perspective of the Spanish State as a whole, to adapt the National Health System (NHS) to current risks and to contemporary/present-day society. METHOD: Expert meeting structured using a mix of procedures adapted from brainstorming, nominal group and Rand consensus method techniques. Relevance and feasibility of proposals identified were assessed individually by each panelist. Proposals were then ordered thematically and ranked according to the median and quartile deviation of relevance scores. RESULTS: Panelists identified and prioritized several proposals in different areas: governance and funding of the NHS, reform of the portfolio of services and benefits and of the NHS human resources, public health and health policy, actions against inequality and poverty, and healthcare delivery reform, including socio-sanitary, primary and end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the meeting show the urgent need to address in-depth changes in many state-wide health policies, including a major reconfiguration of governance, public health, and health care structures. They also point out potential areas of improvement, constituting a tentative guide of prioritized issues to be addressed.

A core outcome set for future research in ectopic pregnancy: an international consensus development study.

OBJECTIVE: To address methodological deficiencies in published randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, this study has developed a core outcome set to guide future research in ectopic pregnancy (EP). DESIGN: To identify potential outcomes, we performed a comprehensive literature review and interviews with individuals with lived experience in EP. Potential core outcomes were then entered into a 3-round Delphi survey. A total of 154 participants from 6 continents, comprising health care professionals, researchers, and individuals with lived experience in EP, completed all 3 rounds of the Delphi survey. Outcomes were prioritized at 3 consensus development meetings, and recommendations were developed on how to report these outcomes where possible. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Health care professionals, researchers, and individuals with lived experience in EP. INTERVENTION(S): Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Consensus for inclusion in core outcome set. RESULT(S): Six outcomes reached full consensus, including treatment success, resolution time, the number of additional interventions, adverse events, mortality and severe morbidity, and treatment satisfaction. CONCLUSION(S): The core outcome set with 6 outcomes for EP will help standardize reporting of clinical trials, facilitate implementation of findings into clinical practice, and enhance patient-centered care.

Developing the Resident Measure of Safety in Care Homes (RMOS): A Delphi and Think Aloud Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a measure of contributory factors to safety incidents in care homes to be completed by residents and/or their unpaid carers. INTRODUCTION: Care home residents are particularly vulnerable to patient safety incidents, due to higher likelihood of frailty, multimorbidity and cognitive decline. However, despite residents and their carers wanting to be involved in safety initiatives, there are few mechanisms for them to contribute and make meaningful safety improvements to practice. METHODS: We developed 73 evidence-based items from synthesis and existing measures, which we presented to a panel of stakeholders (residents/carers, health/social care professionals and researchers). We used two online rounds of Delphi to generate consensus (80%) on items important to include in the Resident Measure of Safety in Care Homes (RMOS); a consensus meeting was later held. The draft RMOS developed through the Delphi was presented to participants during 'Think Aloud' interviews using cognitive testing techniques. RESULTS: The 29-item RMOS was developed. Forty-three participants completed Delphi round 1, and 27 participants completed round 2, 11 participants attended the consensus meeting and 12 'Think Aloud' interviews were conducted. Of the 73 original items, 42 items that did not meet consensus in Delphi round 1 were presented in round 2. After the consensus meeting, it was agreed that 35 items would comprise the RMOS questionnaire and were presented in the 'Think Aloud' interviews. Participants suggested numerous changes to items mostly to improve comprehension and ability to answer. CONCLUSION: We have a developed an evidence-based RMOS, with good face validity, to assess contributory factors to safety in care homes from a resident/carer perspective. Future work will involve psychometrically testing the items in a pilot and developing a complementary simplified, dementia-friendly version to promote inclusivity. PATIENT OR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Four patient and public contributors worked with researchers to develop the online questionnaires. Patients (residents) and carers participated on the consensus panel. One member of the research team is an expert by lived experience and was involved in design and analysis decisions. The item list and instructions for the questionnaires were reviewed for face validity, understanding and acceptability by a patient and public involvement group and modified.

Using consensus methods to prioritize modifiable risk factors for development of manifestations of frailty in hospitalized older adults.

AIM: The aim of the study was to reach consensus on modifiable risk factors for a novel system of care to address Manifestations of Frailty in hospitalized older adults. DESIGN: Consensus study. METHOD: A modified nominal group technique, incorporating expert group face-to-face interaction, review of existing evidence and pre/post-meeting questionnaire completion was undertaken November 2019-February 2020. RESULTS: Seventy-one risk factors, within seven risk factor domains (pain, medication, fluid and nutrition intake, mobility, elimination, infection, additional patient factors) were considered. It was agreed that 44 risk factors incorporating patient, organizational and environmental risk factors were modifiable and should be included in a novel system of care.

Identifying the important outcomes to measure for pharmacy-led, clinical services within primary care: A nominal group technique approach.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of clinical pharmacy services is part of a multi-disciplinary approach to reduce pressure on primary care. Ascertaining the impact of clinical pharmacists in general practice is vital to ensure intended benefits are achieved. However, this is complicated by poor quality evidence, multiple interventions, and a lack of agreement regarding outcome measures. OBJECTIVES: To develop an outcomes framework for clinical pharmacy services delivered in Scottish general practice using a consensus methodology. METHODS: A modified nominal group technique (NGT) was conducted using Microsoft Teams and Qualtrics. This involved a pre-NGT questionnaire, silent generation of ideas, round robin, discussions, ranking, and a final consensus exercise. A selective sampling strategy recruited experienced pharmacists from Scottish health regions. NGT ranking results were used to signify relative importance of the outcome areas. NGT discussions underwent inductive thematic analysis to explore key areas considered. RESULT: Overall, 13 (median: 24 years of experience) pharmacists participated, representing 11 of 14 Scottish regions. In total, 21 outcome areas, derived from the literature and a pre-NGT questionnaire, were considered during the NGT ranking exercise. Consensus identified five important outcome areas: Patient Experience, Medication Related Adverse Events, Cost-Effectiveness, Medication Optimisation, and Health Related Quality of Life. Thematic analysis highlighted the importance of the outcome framework's target audience, factors influencing the interpretation of outcomes, and the feasibility of the associated outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: The five key outcome areas will facilitate evidence-based decisions regarding service delivery. Future work should develop a measurement plan, involving routinely collected sources of outcomes data. The feasibility of collecting outcomes in the real-world context should be considered, identifying measures which are easy to collect within existing data infrastructures. This paper describes a replicable method to gain consensus for a national approach to data collection from a strong theoretical basis using an online methodology.

Prioridades de políticas de salud. Encuentro SESPAS en la XXXIII Escuela de Salud Pública de Menorca / Health policy priorities. SESPAS meeting at the XXXIII School of Public Health of Menorca

Objetivo: En el mes de septiembre de 2022, la Sociedad Española de Salud Pública y Administración Sanitaria (SESPAS) reunió un panel de personas expertas con el objetivo de definir y priorizar las políticas de salud, desde una perspectiva del conjunto del Estado, para adaptar el Sistema Nacional de Salud (SNS) a los actuales riesgos y la actual sociedad. Método: Reunión de personas expertas, estructurada siguiendo procedimientos adaptados de las técnicas de brainstorming, grupo nominal y método de consenso Rand. La relevancia y la factibilidad de las propuestas fueron valoradas individualmente por cada panelista, y se ordenaron temáticamente y en función de la mediana y la desviación cuartil de las puntuaciones de relevancia. Resultados: Los/las panelistas identificaron y priorizaron numerosas propuestas en áreas de gobernanza y financiación del SNS, reforma de la cartera de servicios y prestaciones, reforma de los recursos humanos del SNS, salud pública y políticas de salud, actuaciones frente a las desigualdades y la pobreza, y asistencia sanitaria del SNS, incluyendo la atención sociosanitaria, primaria y al final de la vida. Conclusiones: Los resultados del Encuentro muestran la urgente necesidad de abordar cambios en profundidad en muchas de las políticas de salud estatales, incluyendo una importante reconfiguración en sus estructuras de gobernanza, salud pública y atención sanitaria. También sugieren hacia dónde podrían orientarse tales cambios, conformando una guía tentativa de temas prioritarios a abordar. (AU)

Objective: In September 2022, the Sociedad Española de Salud Pública y Administración Sanitaria (SESPAS) brought together a panel of experts with the aim of defining and prioritizing health policy proposals, from the perspective of the Spanish State as a whole, to adapt the National Health System (NHS) to current risks and to contemporary/present-day society. Method: Expert meeting structured using a mix of procedures adapted from brainstorming, nominal group and Rand consensus method techniques. Relevance and feasibility of proposals identified were assessed individually by each panelist. Proposals were then ordered thematically and ranked according to the median and quartile deviation of relevance scores. Results: Panelists identified and prioritized several proposals in different areas: governance and funding of the NHS, reform of the portfolio of services and benefits and of the NHS human resources, public health and health policy, actions against inequality and poverty, and healthcare delivery reform, including socio-sanitary, primary and end-of-life care. Conclusions: The results of the meeting show the urgent need to address in-depth changes in many state-wide health policies, including a major reconfiguration of governance, public health, and health care structures. They also point out potential areas of improvement, constituting a tentative guide of prioritized issues to be addressed. (AU)