Transcript Example Poster 3

Use of a Delphi Technique to
Identify UKMi Research Priorities
Wessex Drug and Medicines Information Centre
Pharmacy Department
Simon Wills
Head of Wessex Drug & Medicines Information Centre
Southampton General Hospital
Results
Introduction
Research is needed to help inform service
development and to demonstrate the value of
Medicines Information centres to the NHS and patient
care. Compared to certain areas of pharmacy
practice such as Clinical Pharmacy, the specialty of
Medicines Information can call on little published
evidence to support the importance of its role (1,2).
The list of ten topics was sent by email to
thirty-three individuals from around the UK
who were asked to decide which topics they
felt were most important by voting:
Most important (voting score of +3)
Unsure/ undecided (score +2)
Less important (score +1)
In order to correct this, the UKMi Executive has
agreed that a national plan is necessary. In line with
the English Department of Health NHS research
strategy Best Research for Best Health (3), the UKMi
strategy has these objectives:
Blanks or unclear intentions were scored as
zero. See below:
• 4. What can UKMi contribute to the
management and maintenance of electronic
prescribing systems? (73%)
3. To direct the research activities of individuals
within a wider framework, so that each effort forms
part of a series of nationally agreed goals which
ultimately seek to improve patient care and ensure
effective management of information resources.
• 5. How can UKMi best support 24/7 NHS
services? (68%)
None of the remaining round 2 research topics
scored more than 40% of the vote.
4. To deliver and revise UKMi services based on the
evidence of research so that public money is spent
appropriately. Research will drive innovation and
improve service quality.
Discussion
The 33 participants were selected on the basis
of having strategic roles and an understanding
of UKMi. Note that two chief pharmacists had
dual roles:
UKMi Exec members (n=13)
Chief pharmacists (n=6)
PCT/ stHA pharmacists (n=10)
Method
UKCPA/clinical pharmacy (n=3)
The Delphi technique has been interpreted and used
in a variety of ways. Essentially it is a method of
achieving consensus amongst a group of people by
asking participants to vote for a series of ideas or
objectives in order to prioritise them.
Guild Healthcare Pharmacists (n=1)
From ideas available on the Research Zone of the
UKMi website, two were selected from each of these
categories. Topics were selected on the basis of
being broad-based, covering core MI activities, and
being of importance to customers, service users and
MI staff alike.
• 1. What impact does the UKMi enquiry
answering service have on patient care?
(100% of round 2 vote)
• 3. Are UKMi internet resources (e.g. new
product reviews, news) used by healthcare
professionals in the care of individual patients?
(73%)
2. To build vision, resources, training and career
development, and so create a lasting culture in which
pharmacists engaged in providing UKMi services will
aspire to undertake research based on the ideas
which the strategy contains.
Early in the development of the UKMi Research
Strategy, five broad areas for MI research were
identified: Patient care, Service performance and
quality, Partnerships and users of the service,
Information technology, Personnel and training.
The two rounds of the Delphi technique
identified the following as the top five specific
priorities for UKMi research:
• 2. What economic impact do UKMi services
and products have for the NHS? What are the
costs and benefits? (77%)
1. To manage a specialist national research
programme, and attract partners and funding, so that
UKMi is recognised for research excellence.
However, in an attempt to focus research efforts,
UKMi Executive decided to identify major specific
research topics.
Of the 33 individuals approached to participate,
24 responded to the Delphi round 1 (73%
response rate) and 22 of these completed
round 2.
Schools of Pharmacy (n=2)
As well as voting, participants were asked to
nominate new topics which they felt should be
on the list.
The five topics with the highest vote were
retained. To these were added five additional
research subjects selected from the new topics
identified by participants. These were selected
based on frequency of nomination.
The new list of ten topics was then re-presented
to all participants who replied to the first round
of Delphi. This time participants were asked to
vote for the topics they wanted to see in the
strategy, scoring +1 for yes and zero for other
responses.
The five topics with the highest scores were
identified as the top priorities for UKMi research
in the Research Strategy.
The Delphi technique has limitations. As
adapted for the present study, participants
were clearly ‘steered’ by UKMi presenting its
own research ideas for prioritisation in round
1 rather than relying totally on participants
identifying ideas themselves. However, this
was a deliberate decision designed to ensure
that participants did not focus simply on one
aspect of the service (e.g. enquiry answering).
It did not stop participants submitting many
research suggestions of their own (over 40),
and interestingly the economic research
question brought out by Delphi round 1
eventually was the second most popular
research topic.
The Delphi technique has been a useful
mechanism to both secure agreement
between participants and to engage service
users and partners in the decision-making
process. UKMi must now take these clearly
identified research priorities forward as it
implements its national Research Strategy
and ensure that evidence from research is
used both to support and improve its services.
References
1. Hands D, Stephens M & Brown D. A systematic review of the clinical
and economic impact of drug information services on patient
outcome. Pharmacy World Sci 2002; 24: 132-38.
2. Spinewine A, Dean B. Measuring the impact of medicines information
services on patient care: methodological considerations. Pharmacy
World Sci 2002; 24: 177-81.
3. Research and Development Directorate, Department of Health
(England). Best Research for Best Health: A New National Health
Research Strategy. Jan 2006.