Deborah Dudgeon1. 1. School of Medicine, Queen's University , Kingston, Ontario, Canada .
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measuring performance for palliative care is complex as care is delivered in many sites, over time and jointly to the patient and family. Measures of structural processes do not necessarily capture aspects that are important to patients and families nor reflect holistic multidisciplinary outcomes of care. This article focuses on the question as to whether measurement of patient-reported outcome measures improves the outcomes of quality and access to palliative care. OBJECTIVES: To review the international evidence that measurement of indicators of desired outcomes improves the quality of and access to palliative care, in order to apply them to the Canadian context. DESIGN: Rapid review. SETTING: Canadian context. FINDINGS: This review identified six systematic reviews and forty-seven studies that describe largely national efforts to arrive at a consensus as to what needs to be measured to assess quality of palliative care. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are becoming more prevalent, with emerging evidence to suggest that their measurement improves outcomes that are important to patients. Several Canadian initiatives are in place, including the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer's efforts, in conjunction with other partners, to develop common quality measures. Results from Australia's Palliative Care Outcomes Collaborative demonstrate that patient-centered improvements in palliative care can be measured by using patient-reported outcomes derived at the point of care and delivered nationally. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of quality palliative and end-of-life care is very complex. It requires that both administrative data and PROMs be assessed to reflect outcomes that are important to patients and families. Australia's national initiative is a promising exemplar for continued work in this area.
BACKGROUND: Measuring performance for palliative care is complex as care is delivered in many sites, over time and jointly to the patient and family. Measures of structural processes do not necessarily capture aspects that are important to patients and families nor reflect holistic multidisciplinary outcomes of care. This article focuses on the question as to whether measurement of patient-reported outcome measures improves the outcomes of quality and access to palliative care. OBJECTIVES: To review the international evidence that measurement of indicators of desired outcomes improves the quality of and access to palliative care, in order to apply them to the Canadian context. DESIGN: Rapid review. SETTING: Canadian context. FINDINGS: This review identified six systematic reviews and forty-seven studies that describe largely national efforts to arrive at a consensus as to what needs to be measured to assess quality of palliative care. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are becoming more prevalent, with emerging evidence to suggest that their measurement improves outcomes that are important to patients. Several Canadian initiatives are in place, including the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer's efforts, in conjunction with other partners, to develop common quality measures. Results from Australia's Palliative Care Outcomes Collaborative demonstrate that patient-centered improvements in palliative care can be measured by using patient-reported outcomes derived at the point of care and delivered nationally. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of quality palliative and end-of-life care is very complex. It requires that both administrative data and PROMs be assessed to reflect outcomes that are important to patients and families. Australia's national initiative is a promising exemplar for continued work in this area.
Authors: Kathrin Woitha; Karen Van Beek; Nisar Ahmed; Birgit Jaspers; Jean M Mollard; Sam H Ahmedzai; Jeroen Hasselaar; Johan Menten; Kris Vissers; Yvonne Engels Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2013-07-16 Impact factor: 4.762
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: Francis Lau; Michael Downing; Carolyn Tayler; Konrad Fassbender; Mary Lesperance; Jeff Barnett Journal: J Palliat Care Date: 2013 Impact factor: 2.250
Authors: J M Valderas; A Kotzeva; M Espallargues; G Guyatt; C E Ferrans; M Y Halyard; D A Revicki; T Symonds; A Parada; J Alonso Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-01-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Merel van der Meulen; Amir H Zamanipoor Najafabadi; Daniel J Lobatto; Cornelie D Andela; Thea P M Vliet Vlieland; Alberto M Pereira; Wouter R van Furth; Nienke R Biermasz Journal: Endocrine Date: 2020-06-19 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Anupa Pathak; Saurab Sharma; Allen W Heinemann; Paul W Stratford; Daniel Cury Ribeiro; J Haxby Abbott Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Noleen K McCorry; Sean O'Connor; Kathleen Leemans; Joanna Coast; Michael Donnelly; Anne Finucane; Louise Jones; W George Kernohan; Paul Perkins; Martin Dempster Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Andy Bradshaw; Martina Santarelli; Malene Mulderrig; Assem Khamis; Kathryn Sartain; Jason W Boland; Michael I Bennett; Miriam Johnson; Mark Pearson; Fliss E M Murtagh Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2020-11-29 Impact factor: 4.762