Aylin Wagner1,2, Franziska Zúñiga3, Peter Rüesch1, René Schaffert1, Julia Dratva1,4. 1. Institute of Health Sciences, School of Health Professions, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland. 2. Department of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland. 3. Institute of Nursing Science, Department of Public Health, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 4. Medical Faculty, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite an increasing importance of home care, quality assurance in this healthcare sector in Switzerland is hardly established. In 2010, Swiss home care quality indicators (QIs) based on the Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care (RAI-HC) were developed. However, these QIs have not been revised since, although internationally new RAI-HC QIs have emerged. The objective of this study was to assess the appropriateness of RAI-HC QIs to measure quality of home care in Switzerland from a public health and healthcare providers' perspective. METHODS: First, the appropriateness of RAI-HC QIs, identified in a recent systematic review, was assessed by a multidisciplinary expert panel based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method taking into account indicators' public health relevance, potential of influence, and comprehensibility. Second, the QIs selected by the experts were afterwards rated regarding their relevance, potential of influence, and practicability from a healthcare providers' perspective in focus groups with home care nurses based on the Nominal-Group-Technique. Data were analyzed using median scores and the Disagreement Index. RESULTS: 18 of 43 RAI-HC QIs were rated appropriate by the experts from a public health perspective. The 18 QIs cover clinical, psychosocial, functional and service use aspects. Seven of the 18 QIs were subsequently rated appropriate by home care nurses from a healthcare providers' perspective. The focus of these QIs is narrow, because three of seven QIs are pain-related. From both perspectives, the majority of RAI-HC QIs were rated inappropriate because of insufficient potential of influence, with healthcare providers rating them more critically. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that the appropriateness of RAI-HC QIs differs according to the stakeholder perspective and the intended use of QIs. The findings of this study can guide policy-makers and home care organizations on selecting QIs and to critically reflect on their appropriate use.
BACKGROUND: Despite an increasing importance of home care, quality assurance in this healthcare sector in Switzerland is hardly established. In 2010, Swiss home care quality indicators (QIs) based on the Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care (RAI-HC) were developed. However, these QIs have not been revised since, although internationally new RAI-HC QIs have emerged. The objective of this study was to assess the appropriateness of RAI-HC QIs to measure quality of home care in Switzerland from a public health and healthcare providers' perspective. METHODS: First, the appropriateness of RAI-HC QIs, identified in a recent systematic review, was assessed by a multidisciplinary expert panel based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method taking into account indicators' public health relevance, potential of influence, and comprehensibility. Second, the QIs selected by the experts were afterwards rated regarding their relevance, potential of influence, and practicability from a healthcare providers' perspective in focus groups with home care nurses based on the Nominal-Group-Technique. Data were analyzed using median scores and the Disagreement Index. RESULTS: 18 of 43 RAI-HC QIs were rated appropriate by the experts from a public health perspective. The 18 QIs cover clinical, psychosocial, functional and service use aspects. Seven of the 18 QIs were subsequently rated appropriate by home care nurses from a healthcare providers' perspective. The focus of these QIs is narrow, because three of seven QIs are pain-related. From both perspectives, the majority of RAI-HC QIs were rated inappropriate because of insufficient potential of influence, with healthcare providers rating them more critically. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that the appropriateness of RAI-HC QIs differs according to the stakeholder perspective and the intended use of QIs. The findings of this study can guide policy-makers and home care organizations on selecting QIs and to critically reflect on their appropriate use.
Authors: John P Hirdes; Brant E Fries; John N Morris; Naoki Ikegami; David Zimmerman; Dawn M Dalby; Pablo Aliaga; Suzanne Hammer; Richard Jones Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2004-10
Authors: Layla Parast; Brian Doyle; Cheryl L Damberg; Kanaka Shetty; David A Ganz; Neil S Wenger; Paul G Shekelle Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Catherine Donnelly; Rachelle Ashcroft; Amanda Mofina; Nicole Bobbette; Carol Mulder Journal: Prim Health Care Res Dev Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 1.458
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