Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A consensus process for identifying a prioritised list of study questions

  • Published:
Health Care Management Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A consensus process has been developed to assist the UK National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death in identifying questions to be addressed in its studies. The process utilises the knowledge and experience of a panel of experts via a facilitated brainstorming exercise and employs a robust voting system to produce a list of candidate questions ordered in terms of the preferences expressed by individual panel members. The process which is described has been used successfully to assist the design of two national studies and it is anticipated that the process will be adopted for many studies in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NCEPOD (2003) The 2003 report of the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death, London)

  2. NCEPOD (2004) Scoping our practice (National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death, London)

  3. NCEPOD (2005) An Acute Problem (National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death, London)

  4. UK Department of Health (2001) National Service Framework for Older People (UK Department of Health, London), pp 55

  5. Arrow K (1963) Social choice and individual values. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rogers J (1999) Facilitating groups (Management Futures Ltd, London)

  7. Dasgupta P, Maskin E (2004) The fairest vote of all. Scientific American, March

  8. C-de Borda, Memoire sur les Elections au Scrutin (Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, Paris, 1781). English translation in A De Grazia, Mathematical Derivation of an Election System. Isis 44(1953):42-51

  9. Siegel AF (1988) Statistics and data analysis: an introduction. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. M-de Condorcet, Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pleuralité des voix (Imprimerie Royal, Paris, 1785), excerpted and translated in I McLean, F Hewitt, Condorcet: foundations of political theory and social choice (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 1994)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

    Martin Utley, Steve Gallivan & Mary Mills

  2. National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death, Epworth House, 25 City Road, London, EC1Y 1AA, UK

    Marisa Mason & Christobel Hargraves

Authors
  1. Martin Utley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steve Gallivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mary Mills
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marisa Mason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christobel Hargraves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Utley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Utley, M., Gallivan, S., Mills, M. et al. A consensus process for identifying a prioritised list of study questions. Health Care Manage Sci 10, 105–110 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-006-9003-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-006-9003-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation