SEaRCH™ Expert Panel Process

Streamlining the Link Between Evidence and Practice

Published in: BMC Research Notes, v. 9, no. 1, Jan. 2016, p. 1-9

by Ian D. Coulter, Pamela D. Elfenbaum, Shamini Jain, Wayne B. Jonas

Read More

Access further information on this document at BMC Research Notes

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Research Question

  1. How can the process of expert panels of clinicians and researchers be made more transparent, cost effective, and efficient?

BACKGROUND: With rising health care costs and the diversity of scientific and clinical information available to health care providers it is essential to have methodologies that synthesize and distill the quality of information and make it practical to clinicians, patients and policy makers. Too often research synthesis results in the statement that "more and better research is needed" or the conclusions are slanted toward the biases of one type of stakeholder. Such conclusions are discouraging to clinicians and patients who need better guidance on the decisions they make every day. METHOD: Expert panels are one method for offering valuable insight into the scientific evidence and what experts believe about its application to a given clinical situation. However, with improper management their conclusions can end up being biased or even wrong. There are several types of expert panels, but two that have been extensively involved in bringing evidence to bear on clinical practice are consensus panels, and appropriateness panels. These types of panels are utilized by organizations such as the National Institutes of Health, the Institute of Medicine, RAND, and other organizations to provide clinical guidance. However, there is a need for a more cost effective and efficient approach in conducting these panels. In this paper we describe both types of expert panels and ways to adapt those models to form part of Samueli Institute's Scientific Evaluation and Research of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH™) program. DISCUSSION: Expert Panels provide evidence-based information to guide research, practice and health care decision making. The panel process used in SEaRCH seeks to customize, synthesize and streamline these methods. By making the process transparent the panel process informs decisions about clinical appropriateness and research agenda decisions.

Key Findings

  • The SEaRCH program, developed by the Samueli Institute, streamlines processes from three methods: the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference (NIH CDC), the Institute of Medicine report process, and the RAND Expert Panel process.
  • The program is designed to allow easier integration of expert opinion and patient input regarding clinical appropriateness and research priorities.
  • The methodology is new and will need to be validated.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.