Consensus group sessions are useful to reconcile stakeholders’ perspectives about network performance evaluation

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.

[1]  Robyn L. Keast,et al.  Evaluating the effectiveness of interorganizational relations through networks , 2008 .

[2]  G R Baker,et al.  A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of Health Care Organizations' Performance , 1998, Health services management research.

[3]  S. Borgatti,et al.  The Network Paradigm in Organizational Research: A Review and Typology , 2003 .

[4]  Jane Waldfogel,et al.  The New Wave of Service Integration , 1997, Social Service Review.

[5]  J. Bryson,et al.  The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature , 2006 .

[6]  Nick Goodwin,et al.  Managing across diverse networks of care: lessons from other sectors , 2004 .

[7]  Perceptions of traumatic brain injury network participants about network performance , 2010, Brain injury.

[8]  J. Dijk.  Delphi questionnaires versus individual and group interviews , 1990 .

[9]  Chris Huxham,et al.  Theorizing collaboration practice , 2003 .

[10]  Myrna Mandell,et al.  Evaluating Network Arrangements: Toward Revised Performance Measures , 2007 .

[11]  K. Provan,et al.  A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Network Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems , 1995 .

[12]  Claude Sicotte,et al.  Hospital performance: competing or shared values? , 2008, Health Policy.

[13]  Robyn L. Keast,et al.  Network structures : working differently and changing expectations , 2004 .

[14]  Adalsteinn D. Brown,et al.  Stakeholder preferences for cancer care performance indicators. , 2008, International journal of health care quality assurance.

[15]  R. Keast,et al.  Getting The Right Mix: Unpacking Integration Meanings and Strategies , 2007 .

[16]  W N Leutz,et al.  Five laws for integrating medical and social services: lessons from the United States and the United Kingdom. , 1999, The Milbank quarterly.

[17]  P. Finucane,et al.  Towards an acceptance of performance assessment , 2002, Medical education.

[18]  Stuart Jay Deutsch,et al.  Organizational Effectiveness: A Multiple-Constituency Approach , 1980 .

[19]  Patrick Kenis,et al.  TOWARDS AN EXOGENOUS THEORY OF PUBLIC NETWORK PERFORMANCE , 2009 .

[20]  Jan Barnsley,et al.  Competing values of emergency department performance: balancing multiple stakeholder perspectives. , 2004, Health services research.

[21]  Keith G. Provan,et al.  The Use of Network Analysis to Strengthen Community Partnerships , 2005 .

[22]  C. Sicotte,et al.  Définition de la performance hospitalière : une enquête auprès des divers acteurs stratégiques au sein des hôpitaux , 2002 .

[23]  M. Fleury.  Integrated service networks: the Quebec case , 2006, Health services management research.

[24]  É. Dutil,et al.  Evaluating clients' perceptions of the quality of head injury rehabilitation services: development and validation of a questionnaire , 2003, Brain injury.

[25]  Marie Gervais,et al.  Triage: A new group technique gaining recognition in evaluation , 2002 .

[26]  Sandra G. Leggat,et al.  Cadre d'évaluation du rendement des systèmes de prestation de services de santé intégrée , 1997 .

[27]  J. Zinn,et al.  Identifying indicators of laboratory management performance: a multiple constituency approach. , 2001, Health care management review.