Developing a Research Agenda for The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons: Results of a Delphi Approach
ABSTRACT By use of a systematic approach, the aim of this project was to survey a group of colorectal specialists and reach a consensus on the research questions of highest importance in terms of clinical care.
A modified Delphi process was performed. In Round 1 research questions were solicited from members of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. A review group categorized the results, combined similar questions, and presented them to The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons membership in Round 2 for prioritizing according to importance. In Round 3 the 50 questions with the highest scores in Round 2 were reranked by The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons membership to produce the 20 highest-priority research questions.
A total of 203 respondents in Round 1 submitted 746 questions. The review team reduced these to 105 individual questions encompassing 21 topics in colorectal surgical practice. In Rounds 2 and 3, 399 and 360 respondents, respectively, prioritized the questions presented. The final 20 items included 14 questions related to colorectal cancer, and 6 were on benign disease topics.
The research agenda produced by this study reflects the clinical issues of greatest importance to colorectal surgeons. The results are of potential benefit to researchers, funding organizations, medical journals, and ultimately, patients.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Process and outcome measures for quality assessment of colorectal surgical care are poorly defined. The aim of this study was to develop candidate end points for use in surgeon-specific registries designed for case reporting and quality improvement program development. The study design was based on modified Delphi-based development of consensus quality end points. This study was undertaken by the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Executive Council, Quality Committee, and by the ColoRectal Education System Template Committee, American Board of Colon and Rectal Surgery. No patients were included in this study. Six areas of colorectal surgery were defined by members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons' Executive Council and the American Board of Colon and Rectal Surgery to cover areas of importance for colorectal surgeons. These included colectomy, rectal cancer, hemorrhoidectomy, anal fistula and abscess, colonoscopy, and rectal prolapse. Relevant American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons' committee members through a series of 4 panel discussions identified important demographic, process, and outcome measures in each of these 6 areas that might be suitable for the American College of Surgeons case log. Panel size was sequentially expanded from 8 members to 28 members to include all active committee members. Panelists contributed additional process and outcome measures for inclusion during each discussion. Modified Delphi methodology was used to generate consensus, and, after each panel discussion, members rated the relative importance of each end point from 1 (least important) to 4 (most important). The mean rating for each process and outcome measure after each round was recorded with the use of standardized definitions for relevant variables. Eighty-nine process and outcome measures were compiled and rated. Mean scores following the final round ranged from a low of 1.3 (anal fistula/abscess, preoperative imaging) to a high of 4.0 (colectomy-anastomotic leak). The limitations of this study involved the use of consensus, small study size, and the fact that no end points were excluded. With the use of modified Delphi methodology, a consensus-derived ranked list of 89 process and outcome measures was developed in 6 key areas of colorectal surgery. These data provide a framework for development of guideline standards for case-reporting program development initiatives for colon and rectal surgery.Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 03/2012; 55(3):294-301. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0b013e318241b11f · 3.20 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: AimThe modified Delphi approach is an established method for reaching a consensus opinion among a group of experts in a particular field. We have used this technique to survey the entire membership of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI), to reach a consensus on prioritizing clinical research questions in colorectal disease.Method Three rounds of surveys were conducted using a web-based tool. In the first, the ACPGBI membership was invited to submit research questions. In Rounds Two and Three they were asked to score questions on priority. A steering group analysed the results of each round to identify those questions ranked as being of highest priority.ResultsFive hundred and two questions were submitted in Round One. Following two rounds of voting and analysis, a list of twenty five priority questions was produced, including fifteen cancer-related and ten non-cancer-related questions.Conclusion It is anticipated that these results will i) set the research agenda over the next few years for the study of colorectal disease in the United Kingdom, ii) promote development and iii) define funding of new research and prioritise areas of unmet clinical need where the potential clinical impact is greatest.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.Colorectal Disease 10/2014; DOI:10.1111/codi.12790 · 2.02 Impact Factor
- Skeletal Radiology 06/2011; 40(8):959-61. DOI:10.1007/s00256-011-1145-z · 1.74 Impact Factor