Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40352736›Full record

ArticleJournal of healthcare leadership2025

Criteria For Agreement When Conducting Local Consensus Discussions: A Qualitative Study.

Lisa Pagano, Janet C Long, Emilie Francis-Auton, Andrew Hirschhorn, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Gaston Arnolda, Mitchell N Sarkies

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of healthcare leadership, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Factors influencing optimal postoperative pain management: a systematic scoping review.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lisa PaganoAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Janet C LongAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0553-682X
Emilie Francis-AutonAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Andrew HirschhornMQ Health, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Jeffrey BraithwaiteAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Gaston ArnoldaAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Mitchell N SarkiesAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Healthcare is a complex, multi-layered team environment where effective change often requires reaching consensus among relatively autonomous stakeholders. Although conducting informal consensus discussions is a frequently used implementation strategy in real-world clinical settings, limited information exists about what defines consensus when using these methods. Specifying the criteria for consensus is important, as it can shape the design of consensus-building strategies. This study aimed to identify and define the key domains of consensus used in local consensus discussions to standardise healthcare practices. Patients and Methods: A qualitative study was conducted in one private hospital in Australia using a modified, grounded theory methodology. Clinical, non-clinical and leadership staff involved in developing standardised perioperative pathways using informal consensus discussions were recruited. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews and naturalistic participant observations between February 2023 and May 2024. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently until theoretical saturation was achieved. Data were analysed using open coding with constant comparison, focussed and theoretical coding to develop theoretical concepts. Results: Sixteen hours of observations with 31 participants and nine semi-structured interviews were conducted. Analysis identified four distinct consensus criteria: i) unanimous consensus, ii) delegated consensus, iii) assumed consensus and iv) concessional consensus. While unanimity was the preferred outcome, other consensus types emerged as viable alternatives when unanimous agreement was challenging to achieve. Each criterion had differing factors and mechanisms which influenced reaching the consensus criterion, underpinning assumptions, and considerations for practice, which formed four domains of consensus. Conclusion: These domains provide a structured framework for classifying consensus criteria when conducting local consensus discussions in healthcare. The findings broaden our understanding of consensus in local healthcare discussions, moving beyond a singular focus on unanimity. By clearly defining consensus types, organisations can strategically select consensus methods that best support decision-making and intervention implementation.

Indexed as

consensus-buildingdecision-makinghealthcareimplementation scienceperioperative pathwaysqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID40352736
PMCPMC12063692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.