Expert Review / Delphi

Validating the cases with experts

External experts rate each case for relevance, content validity, and feasibility. Iterative Delphi rounds build consensus and produce a validated case bank.

Demo Expert Review Mode

No sign-in is required — this module runs entirely on illustrative demo data stored on this device, so it is fully usable during a FAIMER demonstration with no backend configured. No real expert names, ethics approval, or institutional Delphi data are used anywhere here.

The secure, sign-in-based workflow (Supabase-backed submissions + cross-device consensus) remains available as an optional research-deployment mode — see the reviewer-identity panel below.

Reviewer identity (demo)

Enter a self-chosen label to simulate a panel member on this device (e.g. “Reviewer A”, “Reviewer B”). Submit under different labels to build up an illustrative multi-expert consensus.

Delphi process

1. Round 1 — rate all seven dimensions per case.
2. Analyse consensus (median & IQR / % agreement).
3. Round 2 — re-rate items below the consensus threshold.
4. Finalise the validated case bank.

Demo submissions

Stored locally on this device across all cases.

Case under review

Competency CM 3.4 / IM 3.x · Intermediate

Relevance

1 = low · 5 = high

Is the case relevant to NMC CBME competencies and community practice?

Content validity

1 = low · 5 = high

Is the clinical content accurate, current, and complete?

Feasibility

1 = low · 5 = high

Is the case feasible to implement in the UG posting?

Alignment with NMC CBME

1 = low · 5 = high

Does the case map clearly to a stated competency and assessment method?

Authenticity of clinical reasoning

1 = low · 5 = high

Do the decision points reflect genuine diagnostic/management uncertainty?

Quality of feedback

1 = low · 5 = high

Is the formative feedback after each decision clear, correct, and constructive?

Community / public-health integration

1 = low · 5 = high

Is the population/public-health lens well integrated, not bolted on?

Case review quality checklist

Suggestions / comments

Consensus summary (illustrative)

Delphi Round 1

The Tired Shopkeeper — Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus · consensus threshold ≥ 75% rating 4–5 · computed from 0 demo submissions on this device

Relevance

—

median · IQR

Content validity

—

median · IQR

Feasibility

—

median · IQR

Alignment with NMC CBME

—

median · IQR

Authenticity of clinical reasoning

—

median · IQR

Quality of feedback

—

median · IQR

Community / public-health integration

—

median · IQR

No demo reviews submitted for this case yet. Submit one above — you can submit several times under different reviewer labels to see an illustrative multi-expert consensus build up.