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

Lisa Pagano,1 Janet C Long,1 Emilie Francis-Auton,1 Andrew Hirschhorn,2 Jeffrey Braithwaite,1 Gaston Arnolda,1 Mitchell N Sarkies1,3,4 1Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia; 2MQ Health, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia; 3School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; 4Implementation Science Academy, Sydney Health Partners, University of Sydney, Sydney, AustraliaCorrespondence: Lisa Pagano, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia, Email [email protected]: Healthcare is a complex, multi-layered team environment where effective change often requires reaching consensus among relatively autonomous stakeholders. Although conducting informal consensus discussions is a frequently used implementation strategy in real-world clinical settings, limited information exists about what defines consensus when using these methods. Specifying the criteria for consensus is important, as it can shape the design of consensus-building strategies. This study aimed to identify and define the key domains of consensus used in local consensus discussions to standardise healthcare practices.Patients and Methods: A qualitative study was conducted in one private hospital in Australia using a modified, grounded theory methodology. Clinical, non-clinical and leadership staff involved in developing standardised perioperative pathways using informal consensus discussions were recruited. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews and naturalistic participant observations between February 2023 and May 2024. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently until theoretical saturation was achieved. Data were analysed using open coding with constant comparison, focussed and theoretical coding to develop theoretical concepts.Results: Sixteen hours of observations with 31 participants and nine semi-structured interviews were conducted. Analysis identified four distinct consensus criteria: i) unanimous consensus, ii) delegated consensus, iii) assumed consensus and iv) concessional consensus. While unanimity was the preferred outcome, other consensus types emerged as viable alternatives when unanimous agreement was challenging to achieve. Each criterion had differing factors and mechanisms which influenced reaching the consensus criterion, underpinning assumptions, and considerations for practice, which formed four domains of consensus.Conclusion: These domains provide a structured framework for classifying consensus criteria when conducting local consensus discussions in healthcare. The findings broaden our understanding of consensus in local healthcare discussions, moving beyond a singular focus on unanimity. By clearly defining consensus types, organisations can strategically select consensus methods that best support decision-making and intervention implementation.Keywords: consensus-building, decision-making, implementation science, qualitative research, healthcare, perioperative pathways