Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1999 May-Jun;6(3):219-33.
doi: 10.1136/jamia.1999.0060219.

The determination of relevant goals and criteria used to select an automated patient care information system: a Delphi approach

J K Chocholik  1 , S E Bouchard, J K Tan, D N Ostrow
Affiliations

The determination of relevant goals and criteria used to select an automated patient care information system: a Delphi approach

J K Chocholik et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999 May-Jun.

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the relevant weighted goals and criteria for use in the selection of an automated patient care information system (PCIS) using a modified Delphi technique to achieve consensus.

Design: A three-phase, six-round modified Delphi process was implemented by a ten-member PCIS selection task force. The first phase consisted of an exploratory round. It was followed by the second phase, of two rounds, to determine the selection goals and finally the third phase, of three rounds, to finalize the selection criteria.

Results: Consensus on the goals and criteria for selecting a PCIS was measured during the Delphi process by reviewing the mean and standard deviation of the previous round's responses. After the study was completed, the results were analyzed using a limits-of-agreement indicator that showed strong agreement of each individual's responses between each of the goal determination rounds. Further analysis for variability in the group's response showed a significant movement to consensus after the first goal-determination iteration, with consensus reached on all goals by the end of the second iteration.

Conclusion: The results indicated that the relevant weighted goals and criteria used to make the final decision for an automated PCIS were developed as a result of strong agreement among members of the PCIS selection task force. It is therefore recognized that the use of the Delphi process was beneficial in achieving consensus among clinical and nonclinical members in a relatively short time while avoiding a decision based on political biases and the "groupthink" of traditional committee meetings. The results suggest that improvements could be made in lessening the number of rounds by having information available through side conversations, by having other statistical indicators besides the mean and standard deviation available between rounds, and by having a content expert address questions between rounds.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Delphi process for the PCIS Selection Project at Vancouver Hospital.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Member's goal ballot for Round 2 of the Delphi process.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Janis IL. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1982:9.
    1. Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manage Sci. 1963;9:458-67.
    1. Rauch W. The decision Delphi. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1979;15:159-69.
    1. Goodman CM. The Delphi technique: a critique. J Adv Nurs. 1987;12:729-34. - PubMed
    1. Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1975.