International consensus for a dissection room quality system (DRQS): A Delphi panel study.
Delphi panel
anatomy
consensus
dissection
human body
living donors
university
Journal
Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.)
ISSN: 1098-2353
Titre abrégé: Clin Anat
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8809128
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2024
Jan 2024
Historique:
revised:
15
06
2023
received:
17
04
2023
accepted:
15
06
2023
medline:
11
12
2023
pubmed:
31
8
2023
entrez:
31
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Dissection Rooms (DRs) are key facilities that allow teaching and research on human anatomy, where students and researchers work with human bodies to acquire, increase, or create new knowledge. Usually, DRs work with a Body Donation Program (BDP), where living donors bequeath their bodies for use in teaching and research after they expire. Despite DRs being part of universities worldwide, no common guidelines, regulations, or quality management systems (QMS) exist that could be applied to different countries. With that purpose in mind, we aimed to develop a QMS that could be applied to DRs globally, using a Delphi panel to achieve consensus about the items that should constitute the QMS. The panel was constituted by 20 anatomy professors from 20 different countries, and the 167 standards to create the rules or guidelines that constitute the QMS were divided in five categories: direction, body donation, students, instructors, and research. After two rounds of revisions, 150 standards were considered "essential" or "important" by more than 70% of the participants, thus being incorporated to the Dissection Room Quality System (DRQS). The results of this panel represent a minimum list of items of the DRQS for improving the functioning of DRs globally.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
54-72Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Clinical Anatomy published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Clinical Anatomists and British Association of Clinical Anatomists.
Références
ASQ. (2022). What is a quality management system (QMS)? ASQ. https://asq.org/quality-resources/quality-management-system
Collins, J. P. (2008). Modern approaches to teaching and learning anatomy. BMJ, 337, a1310. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1310
Diamond, I. R., Grant, R. C., Feldman, B. M., Pencharz, P. B., Ling, S. C., Moore, A. M., & Wales, P. W. (2014). Defining consensus: A systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(4), 401-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002
Dirnagl, U., Kurreck, C., Castaños-Vélez, E., & Bernard, R. (2018). Quality management for academic laboratories: Burden or boon? Professional quality management could be very beneficial for academic research but needs to overcome specific caveats. EMBO Reports, 19(11), e47143. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201847143
Henderson, E. J., & Rubin, G. P. (2012). Development of a community-based model for respiratory care services. BMC Health Services Research, 12(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-193
Hulin, C., Netemeyer, R., & Cudeck, R. (2001). Can a reliability coefficient be too high. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10, 55-58.
Hülsemann, M., Wiebach, J., Drude, N. I., Kniffert, S., Behm, L., Hönzke, K., Baumgardt, M., Hippenstiel, S., Hocke, A. C., Dirnagl, U., & Tölch, U. (2022). Introducing quality measures in an academic research consortium: Lessons and recommendation from implementing an ad hoc quality management system for organ model research. EMBO Reports, 23(8), e55095. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202255095
Niederberger, M., & Spranger, J. (2020). Delphi technique in health sciences: A map. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 457. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00457
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The Assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory, 3, 248-292.
Porzionato, A., Macchi, V., Stecco, C., Mazzi, A., Rambaldo, A., Sarasin, G., Parenti, A., Scipioni, A., & De Caro, R. (2012). Quality management of body donation program at the University of Padova. Anatomical Sciences Education, 5(5), 264-272. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1285
Seyfried, M., & Ansmann, M. (2018). Unfreezing higher education institutions? Understanding the introduction of quality management in teaching and learning in Germany. Higher Education, 75, 1061-1076. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10734-017-0185-2
Slade, S. C., Dionne, C. E., Underwood, M., & Buchbinder, R. (2014). Standardised method for reporting exercise programmes: Protocol for a modified Delphi study. BMJ Open, 4(12), e006682. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006682
Trevelyan, E. G., & Robinson, N. (2015). Delphi methodology in health research: How to do it? European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 7(4), 423-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2015.07.002
Vogel, C., Zwolinsky, S., Griffiths, C., Hobbs, M., Henderson, E., & Wilkins, E. (2019). A Delphi study to build consensus on the definition and use of big data in obesity research. International Journal of Obesity, 43(12), 2573-2586. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-018-0313-9
Williams, S. R., Thompson, K. L., Notebaert, A. J., & Sinning, A. R. (2019). Prosection or dissection: Which is best for teaching the anatomy of the hand and foot? Anatomical Sciences Education, 12(2), 173-180. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1808