Selection by a panel of clinicians and family representatives of important early morbidities associated with paediatric cardiac surgery suitable for routine monitoring using the nominal group technique and a robust voting process.

OBJECTIVE: With survival following paediatric cardiac surgery improving, the attention of quality assurance and improvement initiatives is shifting to long-term outcomes and early surgical morbidities. We wanted to involve family representatives and a range of clinicians in selecting the morbidities to be measured in a major UK study.

SETTING: Paediatric cardiac surgery services in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS: We convened a panel comprising family representatives, paediatricians from referring centres, and surgeons and other clinicians from surgical centres.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Using the nominal group technique augmented by a robust voting process to identify group preferences, suggestions for candidate morbidities were elicited, discussed, ranked and then shortlisted. The shortlist was passed to a clinical group that provided a view on the feasibility of monitoring each shortlisted morbidity in routine practice. The panel then met again to select a prioritised list of morbidities for further study, with the list finalised by the clinical group and chief investigators.

RESULTS: At the first panel meeting, 66 initial suggestions were made, with this reduced to a shortlist of 24 after two rounds of discussion, consolidation and voting. At the second meeting, this shortlist was reduced to 10 candidate morbidities. Two were dropped on grounds of feasibility and replaced by another the panel considered important. The final list of nine morbidities included indicators of organ damage, acute events and feeding problems. Family representatives and clinicians from outside tertiary centres brought some issues to greater prominence than if the panel had consisted solely of tertiary clinicians or study investigators.

CONCLUSION: The inclusion of patient and family perspectives in identifying metrics for use in monitoring a specialised clinical service is challenging but feasible and can broaden notions of quality and how to measure it.