Page 130 - Shared Guideline Development Experiences in Fertility Care

Chapter 6
e members of the patient panel proposed to merge four organizational indicators regarding the provision of annual reports on treatment outcomes and complications of di erent MAR-techniques for registration as well as to merge two indicators on sta ’s composition of transport and satellite clinics. e members of the professional panel proposed to rephrase 12 non-organizational indicators by merging 3 indicators on partner involvement by the gynaecologist, urologist and GP and by merging 3 sets of 3 indicators on the information provision regarding the in uence of obesity, smoking cessation and alcohol use on fertility respectively. All these suggestions for rephrasing the indicators were adopted for the patients as well as the professionals. Accordingly, patients’ ‘equivocal’ indicators were reduced with 12 indicators. Professionals’ ‘selected’ and ‘equivocal’ indicators were reduced with two and six indicators, respectively, and one ‘selected’ indicator was merged with two rejected indicators.
Step 3: consensus round
From the patient panel 10 out of 19 (53%) and from the professional panel nine out of 15 (60%) of the second questionnaires were returned. All responding patients and professionals gave their approval for the rephrased selected set of 15 and 11 indicators resulting from step I, respectively. Among the 38 rephrased patients’ ‘equivocal’ indicators, only one non-organizational indicator was selected by more than 50% of the panel. Among the 14 rephrased ‘equivocal’ indicators (i.e. eight organizational and six non-organizational) of the professionals, yet four organizational and three non-organizational indicators were selected by more than 50% of the panel.
Final sets of indicators for patient-centredness
e patients’ nal set consisted of 16 key indicators, including 7 organizational and nine non-organizational indicators (Table 1). All were supported by a level IV-evidence or a level P (Patients).
e professionals’ nal set consisted of 18 key indicators, including nine organizational and nine non-organizational indicators (Table 2). All professionals’ key indicators were supported by a level III- or IV-evidence.
128