CONTEXT: In 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) required U.S. hospices to implement comprehensive quality improvement programs. CMS contracted with the Quality Improvement Organization in North and South Carolina to develop quality measures and instruments to assess hospice and palliative care quality. OBJECTIVES: To develop a set of quality measures, with complete specifications, and data collection tools for use by hospice and palliative care providers in quality improvement. METHODS: Quality measures were identified from: published literature, the National Quality Forum, CMS measures, the National Quality Measures Clearinghouse, and measures submitted by two national hospice organizations. Available data on the quality measures were gathered and pilot data were collected for measures with no available data. A Technical Expert Panel (TEP) rated quality measures on: importance, scientific soundness, feasibility and usability, using numeric scores for each dimension. Scores for quality measures were averaged across dimensions and across TEP members to identify measures for further development. RESULTS: Of 174 measures identified, 88 were determined appropriate to the setting and were reviewed and rated by the TEP. Measures with overall scores ≥75th percentile (n = 23), measures with high importance scores (n = 7), measures for under-represented domains (n = 2), and process measures antecedent to TEP identified measures (n = 2), and were selected. CONCLUSIONS: Specifications and data collection tools are available for 34 PEACE quality measures that were highly rated by experts in hospice and palliative care. Future research should assess the scientific soundness and responsiveness of these measures to quality improvement.
CONTEXT: In 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) required U.S. hospices to implement comprehensive quality improvement programs. CMS contracted with the Quality Improvement Organization in North and South Carolina to develop quality measures and instruments to assess hospice and palliative care quality. OBJECTIVES: To develop a set of quality measures, with complete specifications, and data collection tools for use by hospice and palliative care providers in quality improvement. METHODS: Quality measures were identified from: published literature, the National Quality Forum, CMS measures, the National Quality Measures Clearinghouse, and measures submitted by two national hospice organizations. Available data on the quality measures were gathered and pilot data were collected for measures with no available data. A Technical Expert Panel (TEP) rated quality measures on: importance, scientific soundness, feasibility and usability, using numeric scores for each dimension. Scores for quality measures were averaged across dimensions and across TEP members to identify measures for further development. RESULTS: Of 174 measures identified, 88 were determined appropriate to the setting and were reviewed and rated by the TEP. Measures with overall scores ≥75th percentile (n = 23), measures with high importance scores (n = 7), measures for under-represented domains (n = 2), and process measures antecedent to TEP identified measures (n = 2), and were selected. CONCLUSIONS: Specifications and data collection tools are available for 34 PEACE quality measures that were highly rated by experts in hospice and palliative care. Future research should assess the scientific soundness and responsiveness of these measures to quality improvement.
Authors: Arif H Kamal; David C Currow; Christine Ritchie; Janet Bull; Jane L Wheeler; Amy P Abernethy Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Arif H Kamal; Margaret Gradison; Jennifer M Maguire; Donald Taylor; Amy P Abernethy Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Anna P Schenck; Franziska S Rokoske; Danielle Durham; John G Cagle; Laura C Hanson Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Arif H Kamal; Janet Bull; Dio Kavalieratos; Jonathan M Nicolla; Laura Roe; Martha Adams; Amy P Abernethy Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Marianne Baernholdt; Cathy L Campbell; Ivora D Hinton; Guofen Yan; Erica Lewis Journal: J Nurs Care Qual Date: 2015 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 1.597
Authors: Rebecca L Sudore; Daren K Heyland; Hillary D Lum; Judith A C Rietjens; Ida J Korfage; Christine S Ritchie; Laura C Hanson; Diane E Meier; Steven Z Pantilat; Karl Lorenz; Michelle Howard; Michael J Green; Jessica E Simon; Mariko A Feuz; John J You Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Jennifer S Albrecht; Ann L Gruber-Baldini; Erik K Fromme; Jessina C McGregor; David S H Lee; Jon P Furuno Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2013-05-27 Impact factor: 5.562