ArticlePloS one2025
Quality indicators for rural surgical and obstetrical care: A modified Delphi consensus study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify contextually relevant indicators to measure the quality of surgical and obstetrical care in low-volume rural hospitals using a consensus-based methodology.
methodsA modified Delphi process was implemented in which participants were asked to rate the priority of proposed evaluation metrics over two rounds. Two Delphi surveys were electronically administered in 2019, approximately one month apart. Fifty-one health care professionals from across Canada, including rural proceduralists and quality improvement experts, were invited to participate. All quality measures in the first round were proposed by the study team. The second round included measures that did not reach consensus in the first round and measures suggested by respondents during the first round.
resultsThirty individuals participated in Round 1 (59% response rate). Of the 30 respondents from Round 1, 23 participated in Round 2 (77% response rate). 115 of 177 proposed measures (65%) reached positive consensus in Round 1 or 2. Expert participants agreed that these measures should be prioritized/included when evaluating surgical and/or obstetrical quality in rural hospitals. No measure reached negative consensus in either round. Open-text comments offered practical guidance on how to interpret and use surgical and obstetrical quality data within a rural context. Many respondents believed that rare adverse outcomes have low relevance at rural hospitals where volumes are low, procedures are almost all lower complexity day cases (Cesarean section being the major exception), and patients are typically healthy.
conclusionThe modified Delphi process resulted in the identification of surgical and obstetrical quality indicators that are contextually embedded in the realities of rural practice. The methodology allowed for the consideration of factors often overlooked by normative urban-based approaches, including team-based care characteristic of rural hospitals and limited access to specialist care and imaging services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.