BACKGROUND: Despite growing attention to patient-centered care, the needs of cancer patients are not always met. OBJECTIVE: Using a RAND modified Delphi method, this study aimed to systematically develop evidence-based indicators, to be used to measure the quality of patient-centered cancer care as a first step toward improvement. METHODS: First, key recommendations were identified from literature and were distributed over 5 domains of patient-centered cancer care: communication, physical support, psychosocial care, after-care, and organization of care. Generic key recommendations, with best available evidence, were selected from guidelines. A multidisciplinary panel of patients and medical professionals (n = 14) rated and prioritized these recommendations in a written procedure. Subsequently, the panel discussed the recommendations at a consensus meeting. RESULTS: Key recommendations were identified for communication (n = 32), physical support (n = 13), psychosocial care (n = 25), after-care (n = 11), and organization of care (n = 11). For all domains, recommendations based on high-level evidence were identified except for after-care and physical support. The panel developed 17 indicators concerning criteria for communication and informed consent, evaluation of communication skills, provision of information, examination of emotional health, appointment of a care coordinator, physical complaints, follow-up, rehabilitation, psychosocial effects of waiting times, and self-management. CONCLUSIONS: A set of 17 indicators for patient-centered cancer care resulted from this study. Evidence support was available for most indicators. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This set provides an opportunity to measure and improve the quality of patient-centered cancer care. It is generic and therefore applies to many patients.
BACKGROUND: Despite growing attention to patient-centered care, the needs of cancerpatients are not always met. OBJECTIVE: Using a RAND modified Delphi method, this study aimed to systematically develop evidence-based indicators, to be used to measure the quality of patient-centered cancer care as a first step toward improvement. METHODS: First, key recommendations were identified from literature and were distributed over 5 domains of patient-centered cancer care: communication, physical support, psychosocial care, after-care, and organization of care. Generic key recommendations, with best available evidence, were selected from guidelines. A multidisciplinary panel of patients and medical professionals (n = 14) rated and prioritized these recommendations in a written procedure. Subsequently, the panel discussed the recommendations at a consensus meeting. RESULTS: Key recommendations were identified for communication (n = 32), physical support (n = 13), psychosocial care (n = 25), after-care (n = 11), and organization of care (n = 11). For all domains, recommendations based on high-level evidence were identified except for after-care and physical support. The panel developed 17 indicators concerning criteria for communication and informed consent, evaluation of communication skills, provision of information, examination of emotional health, appointment of a care coordinator, physical complaints, follow-up, rehabilitation, psychosocial effects of waiting times, and self-management. CONCLUSIONS: A set of 17 indicators for patient-centered cancer care resulted from this study. Evidence support was available for most indicators. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This set provides an opportunity to measure and improve the quality of patient-centered cancer care. It is generic and therefore applies to many patients.
Authors: Kerri-Anne R Mitchell; Kelly J Brassil; Serena A Rodriguez; Edward Tsai; Kayo Fujimoto; Kate J Krause; L Aubree Shay; Andrew E Springer Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2020-08-23 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Simone A van Dulmen; Sue Lukersmith; Josephine Muxlow; Elaine Santa Mina; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden; Philip J van der Wees Journal: Health Expect Date: 2013-10-14 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Raymond H Thornton; Lawrence T Dauer; Elyse Shuk; Carma L Bylund; Smita C Banerjee; Erin Maloney; Lindsey B Fox; Christopher M Beattie; Hedvig Hricak; Jennifer Hay Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Kerri-Anne R Mitchell; Kelly J Brassil; Kayo Fujimoto; Bryan M Fellman; Laura Aubree Shay; Andrew E Springer Journal: Value Health Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Sabine Ludt; Elisabeth Urban; Jörg Eckardt; Stefanie Wache; Björn Broge; Petra Kaufmann-Kolle; Günther Heller; Antje Miksch; Katharina Glassen; Katja Hermann; Regine Bölter; Dominik Ose; Stephen M Campbell; Michel Wensing; Joachim Szecsenyi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 3.240