Consensus group sessions: a useful method to reconcile stakeholders' perspectives about network performance evaluation.

TLDR: Group discussions, as part of a consensus technique, appear to be a useful process to reconcile diverging perceptions of network performance among stakeholders.

Abstract: Background: Having a common vision among network stakeholders is an important ingredient to developing a performance evaluation process. Consensus methods may be a viable means to reconcile the perceptions of different stakeholders about the dimensions to include in a performance evaluation framework. Objectives: To determine whether individual organizations within traumatic brain injury (TBI) networks differ in perceptions about the importance of performance dimensions for the evaluation of TBI networks and to explore the extent to which group consensus sessions could reconcile these perceptions. Methods: We used TRIAGE, a consensus technique that combines an individual and a group data collection phase to explore the perceptions of network stakeholders and to reach a consensus within structured group discussions. Results: One hundred and thirty-nine professionals from 43 organizations within eight TBI networks participated in the individual data collection; 62 professionals from these same organisations contributed to the group data collection. The extent of consensus based on questionnaire results (e.g. individual data collection) was low, however, 100% agreement was obtained for each network during the consensus group sessions. The median importance scores and mean ranks attributed to the dimensions by individuals compared to groups did not differ greatly. Group discussions were found useful in understanding the reasons motivating the scoring, for resolving differences among participants, and for harmonizing their values. Conclusion: Group discussions, as part of a consensus technique, appear to be a useful process to reconcile diverging perceptions of network performance among stakeholders.