Kathleen Leemans1, Luc Deliens2, Anneke L Francke3, Robert Vander Stichele4, Lieve Van den Block5, Joachim Cohen6. 1. End-of-Life Care Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) & Ghent University, Brussels, Belgium kleemans@vub.ac.be. 2. End-of-Life Care Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) & Ghent University, Brussels, Belgium Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. End-of-Life Care Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) & Ghent University, Brussels, Belgium Heymans Institute of Pharmacology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 5. End-of-Life Care Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) & Ghent University, Brussels, Belgium Department of Family Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium. 6. End-of-Life Care Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) & Ghent University, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the absence of a standardized, comprehensive and valid set of quality indicators for palliative care, we developed one for palliative care services in Belgium. AIM: This study evaluates its face validity, feasibility, discriminative power and usefulness. DESIGN: We combined a quantitative analysis evaluating the answers with qualitative interviews with the contact persons of all participating services. SETTING: The quality indicator set was implemented in nine palliative care services in Belgium involving a measurement procedure with questionnaires to the patients of the services, their professional caregivers, family carers and physicians. RESULTS: The response rate was 56% for patients, 97% for caregivers, 56% for family carers and 65% for physicians, indicating good feasibility of the measurement procedure. During the interviews, caregivers found the indicator scores valid and none was extremely skewed, confirming their discriminative power. Still, 20 of the 80 indicators showed problems of feasibility and 5 of usefulness. One was discarded and the others were improved by changing either the formulation of the indicator or the questions used. Most participants expressed a desire for a smaller but still comprehensive set. CONCLUSION: Based on the results, minor adjustments were made to individual indicators, to the measurement tools and to the procedure used; the quality indicators are now ready for further evaluation and use across palliative care services in Belgium. As soon as these indicators are being used systematically, it will be possible to demonstrate and compare quality at the national and international levels and to evaluate improvement initiatives.
BACKGROUND: In the absence of a standardized, comprehensive and valid set of quality indicators for palliative care, we developed one for palliative care services in Belgium. AIM: This study evaluates its face validity, feasibility, discriminative power and usefulness. DESIGN: We combined a quantitative analysis evaluating the answers with qualitative interviews with the contact persons of all participating services. SETTING: The quality indicator set was implemented in nine palliative care services in Belgium involving a measurement procedure with questionnaires to the patients of the services, their professional caregivers, family carers and physicians. RESULTS: The response rate was 56% for patients, 97% for caregivers, 56% for family carers and 65% for physicians, indicating good feasibility of the measurement procedure. During the interviews, caregivers found the indicator scores valid and none was extremely skewed, confirming their discriminative power. Still, 20 of the 80 indicators showed problems of feasibility and 5 of usefulness. One was discarded and the others were improved by changing either the formulation of the indicator or the questions used. Most participants expressed a desire for a smaller but still comprehensive set. CONCLUSION: Based on the results, minor adjustments were made to individual indicators, to the measurement tools and to the procedure used; the quality indicators are now ready for further evaluation and use across palliative care services in Belgium. As soon as these indicators are being used systematically, it will be possible to demonstrate and compare quality at the national and international levels and to evaluate improvement initiatives.
Authors: Kathleen Leemans; Lieve Van den Block; Robert Vander Stichele; Anneke L Francke; Luc Deliens; Joachim Cohen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kim de Nooijer; Lara Pivodic; Luc Deliens; Guido Miccinesi; Tomas Vega Alonso; Sarah Moreels; Lieve Van den Block Journal: BMJ Support Palliat Care Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 3.568
Authors: Charlèss Dupont; Robrecht De Schreye; Joachim Cohen; Mark De Ridder; Lieve Van den Block; Luc Deliens; Kathleen Leemans Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Rose Miranda; Yolanda W H Penders; Tinne Smets; Luc Deliens; Guido Miccinesi; Tomás Vega Alonso; Sarah Moreels; Lieve Van den Block Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 10.668