Guideline driven indicators developed using an iterated consensus rating procedure
| Aim | Undertaken by | Criteria used | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Round 1: Pre-selection | Selecting key recommendations | Small group of quality indicators developers (1–3 persons) | Outcome of care: • Patients’ health (morbidity, mortality, health status) • Cost |
| Round 2: Rating and adding | Rating and adding key recommendations | Expert panel (8–10 persons) | • Patients’ health • Cost • Sensitivity to change • Availability of data |
| Round 3: Reliability | Determining inter- and intra-rater reliability | Expert panel for the rating Research team for the analyses | • Kappa, rho |
| Round 4: Potential indicators | Getting set of potential indicators | Research team | • Cut off score: mean above mid of rating scale • Agreement among 80% of the panel members |
| Round 5: Reflection | Acceptability of indicators | Research team Laymen professionals | • Face validity |