Kathrin Woitha1, Jeroen Hasselaar2, Karen van Beek3, Nisar Ahmed4, Birgit Jaspers5, Jan C M Hendriks6, Lukas Radbruch7, Kris Vissers2, Yvonne Engels2. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Yvonne.Engels@radboudumc.nl. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiotherapy-Oncology and Palliative Medicine, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Academic Unit of Supportive Care, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 5. Palliative Care Centre, Department of Palliative Medicine, Malteser Hospital Bonn/Rhein-Sieg, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany Department of Palliative Medicine, Georg-August-University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. 6. Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 7. Palliative Care Centre, Department of Palliative Medicine, Malteser Hospital Bonn/Rhein-Sieg, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A well-organized palliative care service is a prerequisite for offering good palliative care. Reliable and feasible quality indicators are needed to monitor the quality of their organization. AIM: To test feasibility and reliability of a previously developed set of quality indicators in settings and services that provide palliative care across Europe. METHODS: A total of 38 quality indicators, applicable in all types of settings, rated in a RAND Delphi process, and operationalized into 38 yes/no questions, were used. Descriptives statistics, factor and reliability analyses, analysis of variance, and chi-square analyses were used. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Questionnaires were sent to representatives of 217 palliative care settings in 25 countries. Included settings were hospices, inpatient dedicated palliative care beds, palliative care outpatient clinics, palliative care units, day care centers for palliative care, palliative care home support teams, inpatient palliative care support teams, care homes, and nursing homes. RESULTS: All invited 25 European Association of Palliative Care countries took part. In total, 107 out of 217 participants responded (57%). The quality indicators were reduced to four coherent sub-scales, being "equipment and continuity of care," "structured documentation of essential palliative care elements in the medical record," "training and appraisal of personnel," and "availability of controlled drugs." No significant differences in quality criteria between the different types of settings and services were identified. CONCLUSION: The set of quality indicators appeared to measure four reliable domains that assess the organization of different palliative care settings. It can be used as a starting point for quality improvement activities.
BACKGROUND: A well-organized palliative care service is a prerequisite for offering good palliative care. Reliable and feasible quality indicators are needed to monitor the quality of their organization. AIM: To test feasibility and reliability of a previously developed set of quality indicators in settings and services that provide palliative care across Europe. METHODS: A total of 38 quality indicators, applicable in all types of settings, rated in a RAND Delphi process, and operationalized into 38 yes/no questions, were used. Descriptives statistics, factor and reliability analyses, analysis of variance, and chi-square analyses were used. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Questionnaires were sent to representatives of 217 palliative care settings in 25 countries. Included settings were hospices, inpatient dedicated palliative care beds, palliative care outpatient clinics, palliative care units, day care centers for palliative care, palliative care home support teams, inpatient palliative care support teams, care homes, and nursing homes. RESULTS: All invited 25 European Association of Palliative Care countries took part. In total, 107 out of 217 participants responded (57%). The quality indicators were reduced to four coherent sub-scales, being "equipment and continuity of care," "structured documentation of essential palliative care elements in the medical record," "training and appraisal of personnel," and "availability of controlled drugs." No significant differences in quality criteria between the different types of settings and services were identified. CONCLUSION: The set of quality indicators appeared to measure four reliable domains that assess the organization of different palliative care settings. It can be used as a starting point for quality improvement activities.
Authors: Julia Berendt; Stephanie Stiel; Steffen T Simon; Andrea Schmitz; Birgitt van Oorschot; Peter Stachura; Christoph Ostgathe Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-07-20