A qualitative study of how clinicians reach agreement in perioperative pathway development: the Consensus Model for Standardising Healthcare.

Lisa Pagano, Janet C Long, Emilie Francis-Auton, Andrew Hirschhorn, Gaston Arnolda, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Mitchell N Sarkies
{"title":"A qualitative study of how clinicians reach agreement in perioperative pathway development: the Consensus Model for Standardising Healthcare.","authors":"Lisa Pagano, Janet C Long, Emilie Francis-Auton, Andrew Hirschhorn, Gaston Arnolda, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Mitchell N Sarkies","doi":"10.1186/s43058-025-00699-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Variation in perioperative care persists globally. Consensus discussions may facilitate standardisation, yet the processes used to reach agreement are poorly understood. This study aimed to develop a model for conducting local consensus discussions when implementing standardised perioperative pathways. Specifically, we 1) describe how local consensus discussions are operationalised; 2) identify what guides decision making and consensus between clinicians; and 3) formulate explanatory mechanisms and identify determinants that facilitate consensus discussions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative, modified grounded theory study was conducted in one private hospital in metropolitan Sydney, Australia. Thirty-one participants from clinical disciplines and hospital management/leadership were included. Data were collected from nine semi-structured interviews and 16 h of participant observations during consensus development or implementation meetings. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently until theoretical saturation was achieved. Interviews and field notes were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using coding, constant comparison, detailed memo writing and data interpretation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven individual and contextual factors crucial for building consensus, and eight mechanisms for reaching agreement were identified and integrated into a conceptual model. Seeking evidence to support decision-making emerged as the primary driver of consensus. Strong research evidence in support of a pathway component facilitated swift agreement. Where there was ambiguous evidence for a pathway component, clinicians based their decisions on a desire for professional autonomy, consideration of how their peers practice, patient preferences, practices from external organisations, or the feasibility of implementing the pathway component.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Consensus Model for Standardising Healthcare provides a map for healthcare organisations seeking to conduct local consensus discussions to reduce variation in care. Our findings advance our understanding of how local consensus discussions are conducted and factors that impact success when standardising care amongst clinicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"6 1","pages":"17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11796167/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation science communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-025-00699-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Variation in perioperative care persists globally. Consensus discussions may facilitate standardisation, yet the processes used to reach agreement are poorly understood. This study aimed to develop a model for conducting local consensus discussions when implementing standardised perioperative pathways. Specifically, we 1) describe how local consensus discussions are operationalised; 2) identify what guides decision making and consensus between clinicians; and 3) formulate explanatory mechanisms and identify determinants that facilitate consensus discussions.

Methods: A qualitative, modified grounded theory study was conducted in one private hospital in metropolitan Sydney, Australia. Thirty-one participants from clinical disciplines and hospital management/leadership were included. Data were collected from nine semi-structured interviews and 16 h of participant observations during consensus development or implementation meetings. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently until theoretical saturation was achieved. Interviews and field notes were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using coding, constant comparison, detailed memo writing and data interpretation.

Results: Seven individual and contextual factors crucial for building consensus, and eight mechanisms for reaching agreement were identified and integrated into a conceptual model. Seeking evidence to support decision-making emerged as the primary driver of consensus. Strong research evidence in support of a pathway component facilitated swift agreement. Where there was ambiguous evidence for a pathway component, clinicians based their decisions on a desire for professional autonomy, consideration of how their peers practice, patient preferences, practices from external organisations, or the feasibility of implementing the pathway component.

Conclusions: The Consensus Model for Standardising Healthcare provides a map for healthcare organisations seeking to conduct local consensus discussions to reduce variation in care. Our findings advance our understanding of how local consensus discussions are conducted and factors that impact success when standardising care amongst clinicians.

关于临床医生如何在围手术期路径制定中达成一致的定性研究:医疗保健标准化共识模式。
背景:全球围手术期护理存在差异。协商一致的讨论可能会促进标准化,但人们对达成协议的过程知之甚少。本研究旨在建立一个模型,在实施标准化围手术期路径时进行局部共识讨论。具体来说,我们1)描述了本地共识讨论是如何运作的;2)确定指导临床医生决策和达成共识的因素;3)制定解释机制并确定促进共识讨论的决定因素。方法:在澳大利亚悉尼市区的一家私立医院进行定性、修正的扎根理论研究。包括31名来自临床学科和医院管理/领导的参与者。数据收集自9次半结构化访谈和在共识制定或实施会议期间16小时的参与者观察。数据收集和分析同时进行,直到达到理论饱和。采访和实地记录被逐字记录下来。数据分析采用编码,不断比较,详细的备忘录写作和数据解释。结果:确定了七个对建立共识至关重要的个人和背景因素,以及达成协议的八种机制,并将其整合到一个概念模型中。寻求支持决策的证据成为达成共识的主要推动力。强有力的研究证据支持通路成分,促进了迅速达成协议。当路径组件的证据不明确时,临床医生根据专业自主的愿望,考虑同行的实践方式,患者的偏好,外部组织的实践或实施路径组件的可行性来做出决定。结论:医疗保健标准化的共识模型为医疗保健组织提供了一个地图,寻求进行当地的共识讨论,以减少护理的变化。我们的研究结果促进了我们对如何进行局部共识讨论的理解,以及在临床医生之间标准化护理时影响成功的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信