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

• DOI: 10.2147/jhl.s522784
• Publication Date: 2025-05-05T06:20:11Z
• Authors: Lisa Pagano; Janet Long; Emilie Francis-Auton; Andrew Hirschhorn; Jeffrey Braithwaite; Gaston Arnolda; Mitchell Sarkies
• Keywords: Agreement

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