Kathleen Leemans1,2, L Deliens1,2,3, L Van den Block1,2,4, R Vander Stichele5, A L Francke6,7, J Cohen1,2. 1. 1 End-of-Life Care Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium. 2. 2 Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 3. 3 Department of Medical Oncology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 4. 4 Department of General Practice, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium. 5. 5 Department of Pharmacology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 6. 6 Department of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Center, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 7. 7 NIVEL-Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A feasibility evaluation of a comprehensive quality indicator set for palliative care identified the need for a minimal selection of these indicators to monitor quality of palliative care services with short questionnaires for the patients, caregivers, and family carers. OBJECTIVES: To develop a minimal indicator set for efficient quality assessment in palliative care. DESIGN: A 2 round modified Research ANd Development corporation in collaboration with the University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) expert consultation. SETTING/PATIENTS: Thirteen experts in palliative care (professionals and patient representatives). MEASUREMENTS: In a home assignment, experts were asked to score 80 developed indicators for "priority" to be included in the minimal set on a scale from 0 (lowest priority) to 9 (highest priority). The second round consisted of a plenary meeting in which the minimal set was finalized. RESULTS: Thirty-nine of the 80 indicators were discarded, while 19 were definitely selected after the home assignment, and 22 were proposed for discussion during the meeting; 12 of these survived the selection round. The final minimal indicator set for palliative care consists of 5 indicators about the physical aspects of care; 6 about the psychosocial aspects of care; 13 about information, communication, and care planning; 5 about type of care; and 2 about continuity of care. CONCLUSION: A minimal set of 31 indicators reflecting all the important issues in palliative care was created for palliative care services to assess the quality of their care in a quick and efficient manner. Additional topic-specific optional modules are available for more thorough assessment of specific aspects of care.
BACKGROUND: A feasibility evaluation of a comprehensive quality indicator set for palliative care identified the need for a minimal selection of these indicators to monitor quality of palliative care services with short questionnaires for the patients, caregivers, and family carers. OBJECTIVES: To develop a minimal indicator set for efficient quality assessment in palliative care. DESIGN: A 2 round modified Research ANd Development corporation in collaboration with the University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) expert consultation. SETTING/PATIENTS: Thirteen experts in palliative care (professionals and patient representatives). MEASUREMENTS: In a home assignment, experts were asked to score 80 developed indicators for "priority" to be included in the minimal set on a scale from 0 (lowest priority) to 9 (highest priority). The second round consisted of a plenary meeting in which the minimal set was finalized. RESULTS: Thirty-nine of the 80 indicators were discarded, while 19 were definitely selected after the home assignment, and 22 were proposed for discussion during the meeting; 12 of these survived the selection round. The final minimal indicator set for palliative care consists of 5 indicators about the physical aspects of care; 6 about the psychosocial aspects of care; 13 about information, communication, and care planning; 5 about type of care; and 2 about continuity of care. CONCLUSION: A minimal set of 31 indicators reflecting all the important issues in palliative care was created for palliative care services to assess the quality of their care in a quick and efficient manner. Additional topic-specific optional modules are available for more thorough assessment of specific aspects of care.
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