A M Walling1,2,3, S C Ahluwalia4,5, N S Wenger6,4, M Booth4, C P Roth4, K Lorenz7,8, F Kanwal9,10, S Dy11, S M Asch7,8. 1. Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA. awalling@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. awalling@mednet.ucla.edu. 3. RAND Health, Santa Monica, CA, USA. awalling@mednet.ucla.edu. 4. RAND Health, Santa Monica, CA, USA. 5. UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 7. Palo Alto VA Health System, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 8. Division of General Medical Disciplines, Stanford, CA, USA. 9. Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA. 10. Division of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. 11. Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are guidelines for the medical management of cirrhosis and associated quality indicators (QIs), but QIs focusing on standards for palliative aspects of care are needed. METHODS: We convened a 9-member, multidisciplinary expert panel and used RAND/UCLA modified Delphi methods to develop palliative care quality indicators for patients with cirrhosis. Experts were provided with a report based on a systematic review of the literature that contained evidence concerning the proposed candidate QIs. Panelists rated QIs prior to a planned meeting using a standard 9-point RAND appropriateness scale. These ratings guided discussion during a day-long phone conference meeting, and final ratings were then provided by panel members. Final QI scores were computed and QIs with a final median score of greater than or equal to 7, and no disagreement was included in the final set. RESULTS: Among 28 candidate QIs, the panel rated 19 as valid measures of quality care. These 19 quality indicators cover care related to information and care planning (13) and supportive care (6). CONCLUSIONS: These QIs are evidence-based process measures of care that may be useful to improve the quality of palliative care. Research is needed to better understand the quality of palliative care provided to patients with cirrhosis.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are guidelines for the medical management of cirrhosis and associated quality indicators (QIs), but QIs focusing on standards for palliative aspects of care are needed. METHODS: We convened a 9-member, multidisciplinary expert panel and used RAND/UCLA modified Delphi methods to develop palliative care quality indicators for patients with cirrhosis. Experts were provided with a report based on a systematic review of the literature that contained evidence concerning the proposed candidate QIs. Panelists rated QIs prior to a planned meeting using a standard 9-point RAND appropriateness scale. These ratings guided discussion during a day-long phone conference meeting, and final ratings were then provided by panel members. Final QI scores were computed and QIs with a final median score of greater than or equal to 7, and no disagreement was included in the final set. RESULTS: Among 28 candidate QIs, the panel rated 19 as valid measures of quality care. These 19 quality indicators cover care related to information and care planning (13) and supportive care (6). CONCLUSIONS: These QIs are evidence-based process measures of care that may be useful to improve the quality of palliative care. Research is needed to better understand the quality of palliative care provided to patients with cirrhosis.
Authors: Anne Walling; Karl A Lorenz; Sydney M Dy; Arash Naeim; Homayoon Sanati; Steven M Asch; Neil S Wenger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-08-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Arif H Kamal; Margaret Gradison; Jennifer M Maguire; Donald Taylor; Amy P Abernethy Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Fasiha Kanwal; Jennifer Kramer; Steven M Asch; Hashem El-Serag; Brennan M R Spiegel; Steven Edmundowicz; Arun J Sanyal; Jason A Dominitz; Kenneth R McQuaid; Paul Martin; Emmet B Keeffe; Lawrence S Friedman; Samuel B Ho; Francisco Durazo; Bruce R Bacon Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2010-04-10 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Anne M Walling; Steven M Asch; Karl A Lorenz; Carol P Roth; Tod Barry; Katherine L Kahn; Neil S Wenger Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2010-06-28
Authors: M Soncini; P Leo; O Triossi; C Breda; A F Attili; A Mondardini; A Federico; A Cosentini; G Tritto; R Bottelli; F Pompeo; G P Marone; P Bonazzi; M R Magnolia; L Pietrini; M Proietti; V Belfiori; A Tozzi; L A Giglio; R Muratori; A M Bertelè; T Grasso; A Spadaccini; M Verta; L Ferraris; S Caruso; R Sega; G Brambilla Journal: Hepatol Res Date: 2006-09-11 Impact factor: 4.288
Authors: Melissa W Wachterman; Corey Pilver; Dawn Smith; Mary Ersek; Stuart R Lipsitz; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Nneka N Ufere; John Donlan; Lauren Waldman; Jules L Dienstag; Lawrence S Friedman; Kathleen E Corey; Nikroo Hashemi; Peter Carolan; Alan C Mullen; Michael Thiim; Irun Bhan; Ryan Nipp; Joseph A Greer; Jennifer S Temel; Raymond T Chung; Areej El-Jawahri Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Katherine C Lee; Anne M Walling; Steven S Senglaub; Amy S Kelley; Zara Cooper Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Rebecca L Sudore; Daren K Heyland; Hillary D Lum; Judith A C Rietjens; Ida J Korfage; Christine S Ritchie; Laura C Hanson; Diane E Meier; Steven Z Pantilat; Karl Lorenz; Michelle Howard; Michael J Green; Jessica E Simon; Mariko A Feuz; John J You Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Arpan Patel; Steven Asch; Anna Liza Antonio; Fasiha Kanwal; Karl Lorenz; Deborah Riopelle; Anna Dickey; Jennifer Larkin; Martin Lee; Anne Walling Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 3.199