PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

S Hyndman

Publications and source records attributed to S Hyndman.

3 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1994

Criteria formulation and application: an evaluative framework.

This paper critically examines how criteria are formulated and applied in quality assurance or quality improvement systems. It begins by drawing attention to the division that exists between criteria derived by so-called expert groups and those developed more locally by practitioners. In seeking to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of these two contrasting approaches, it explores the more fundamental questions of how criteria are formulated in general and how they can best be applied. An evaluative framework is offered as a working checklist for practitioners involved in criteria formulation. The framework identifies three main areas: actual construction of criteria; procedures for formulation and issues related to application. An example of each area is offered from results of the ODySSSy Project. The paper concludes by recommending more systematic studies in this highly complex area.

Delphi Technique↗
PubMed1993

A comparison of expert- and practitioner-derived criteria for post-operative pain management.

A comparison of two methods of criteria formulation was carried out as part of a 3-year research study looking at the effectiveness of a nursing quality assurance system (the Royal College of Nursing's Dynamic Standard Setting System). In particular, the study wished to explore whether and to what extent criteria sets derived from an expert group differed from criteria generated by local practitioner groups. One expert group and five local groups were helped to develop criteria on the topic of post-operative pain management. Results showed that the expert group underwent a much more controlled and systematic approach to the task than any of the local groups who were supported by newly trained facilitators. Despite this difference, two of the five local groups had criteria convergence scores of more than 55%, demonstrating that the local knowledge on the topic was acceptable. Whether the lower convergence of the groups was due to lack of knowledge or a combination of difficult group processes and novice facilitation is difficult to say. However, what the study did show was that local groups can generate criteria sets comparable to expert groups, given proper facilitation and support.

Adult↗