Arif H Kamal1, Margaret Gradison2, Jennifer M Maguire2, Donald Taylor2, Amy P Abernethy2. 1. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center; Duke Center for Learning Health Care, Duke Clinical Research Institute; Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham; Division of Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC arif.kamal@duke.edu. 2. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center; Duke Center for Learning Health Care, Duke Clinical Research Institute; Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham; Division of Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Quality assessment is a critical component of determining the value of medical services, including palliative care. Characterization of the current portfolio of measures that assess the quality of palliative care delivered in oncology is necessary to identify gaps and inform future measure development. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE/PubMed and the gray literature for quality measures relevant to palliative care. Measures were categorized into National Quality Forum domains and reviewed for methodology of development and content. Measures were additionally analyzed to draw summative conclusions on scope and span. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-four quality measures within 13 measure sets were identified. The most common domains for measure content were Physical Aspects of Care (35%) and Structure and Processes of Care (22%). Of symptom-related measures, pain (36%) and dyspnea (26%) were the most commonly addressed. Spiritual (4%) and Cultural (1%) Aspects of Care were least represented domains. Generally, measures addressed processes of care, did not delineate benchmarks for success, and often did not specify intended interventions to address unmet needs. This was most evident regarding issues of psychosocial and spiritual assessment and management. CONCLUSION: Within a large cohort of quality measures for palliative, care is often a focus on physical manifestations of disease and adverse effects of therapy; relatively little attention is given to the other aspects of suffering commonly observed among patients with advanced cancer, including psychological, social, and spiritual distress.
PURPOSE: Quality assessment is a critical component of determining the value of medical services, including palliative care. Characterization of the current portfolio of measures that assess the quality of palliative care delivered in oncology is necessary to identify gaps and inform future measure development. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE/PubMed and the gray literature for quality measures relevant to palliative care. Measures were categorized into National Quality Forum domains and reviewed for methodology of development and content. Measures were additionally analyzed to draw summative conclusions on scope and span. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-four quality measures within 13 measure sets were identified. The most common domains for measure content were Physical Aspects of Care (35%) and Structure and Processes of Care (22%). Of symptom-related measures, pain (36%) and dyspnea (26%) were the most commonly addressed. Spiritual (4%) and Cultural (1%) Aspects of Care were least represented domains. Generally, measures addressed processes of care, did not delineate benchmarks for success, and often did not specify intended interventions to address unmet needs. This was most evident regarding issues of psychosocial and spiritual assessment and management. CONCLUSION: Within a large cohort of quality measures for palliative, care is often a focus on physical manifestations of disease and adverse effects of therapy; relatively little attention is given to the other aspects of suffering commonly observed among patients with advanced cancer, including psychological, social, and spiritual distress.
Authors: Arif H Kamal; Janet Bull; Dio Kavalieratos; Donald H Taylor; William Downey; Amy P Abernethy Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Richard A Mularski; J Randall Curtis; J Andrew Billings; Robert Burt; Ira Byock; Cathy Fuhrman; Anne C Mosenthal; Justine Medina; Daniel E Ray; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Lawrence J Schneiderman; Patsy D Treece; Robert D Truog; Mitchell M Levy Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Ethan Basch; Amy P Abernethy; C Daniel Mullins; Bryce B Reeve; Mary Lou Smith; Stephen Joel Coons; Jeff Sloan; Keith Wenzel; Cynthia Chauhan; Wayland Eppard; Elizabeth S Frank; Joseph Lipscomb; Stephen A Raymond; Merianne Spencer; Sean Tunis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-10-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael J Hassett; Kristen K McNiff; Adam P Dicker; Timothy Gilligan; Carolyn B Hendricks; Inga Lennes; Thomas Murray; Monika K Krzyzanowska Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Thomas J Smith; Sarah Temin; Erin R Alesi; Amy P Abernethy; Tracy A Balboni; Ethan M Basch; Betty R Ferrell; Matt Loscalzo; Diane E Meier; Judith A Paice; Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Mark Somerfield; Ellen Stovall; Jamie H Von Roenn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Randall Curtis; Seelwan Sathitratanacheewin; Helene Starks; Robert Y Lee; Erin K Kross; Lois Downey; James Sibley; William Lober; Elizabeth T Loggers; James A Fausto; Charlotta Lindvall; Ruth A Engelberg Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: D Hui; S Bansal; F Strasser; T Morita; A Caraceni; M Davis; N Cherny; S Kaasa; D Currow; A Abernethy; C Nekolaichuk; E Bruera Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Katherine A Ornstein; Joan Penrod; Julie B Schnur; Cardinale B Smith; Jeanne A Teresi; Melissa M Garrido; Karen McKendrick; Albert L Siu; Diane E Meier; R Sean Morrison Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Arif H Kamal; Dio Kavalieratos; Janet Bull; Charles S Stinson; Jonathan Nicolla; Amy P Abernethy Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 3.612