Noriyuki Kawabata1, Mikio Nin2. 1. Department of Palliative Care, Osaka Rosai Hospital, 1179-3 Nagasone-cho, Kita-ku, Sakai City, Osaka, Japan. off.kawabata@gmail.com. 2. Department of Palliative Care, Osaka Rosai Hospital, 1179-3 Nagasone-cho, Kita-ku, Sakai City, Osaka, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current consensus recognizes the benefits of early intervention in palliative care consultation teams (PCCTs). As consultants, we should now attempt to improve the quality of our teams by utilizing a method mainly used in the business field. We aimed to investigate the effects of iterative evaluation of customer satisfaction surveys, filled by physicians and ward nurses in this study, for quality improvement of PCCTs. METHODS: In October 2019, the participants filled the first questionnaire survey about palliative care and PCCTs at a 678-bed hospital, and improvement areas were uncovered. Refinements were planned and implemented, and then reevaluated using the second questionnaire survey in March 2020. RESULTS: In addition to the characteristics of our clients evaluated from approximately 500 valid responses, the first survey showed that the response rate of the questionnaire, knowledge of palliative care and PCCTs, and publicity of the PCCT were recognized as issues needing attention. We planned to contrive ways to collect questionnaires, hold monthly workshops for palliative care, launch newsletters of palliative care, and go on client rounds. The second survey revealed improvements in the physicians' response rate (p = 0.02), the accuracy rate of application of PCCTs in Japan (p < 0.01), and ward nurses' confidence in opioid use (p = 0.04) and tendency toward easier accessibility to the PCCT (p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Continual quality improvements through iterative, customer satisfaction survey-driven evaluation are a widely established practice in the business field. By using this appropriately, we could enable PCCTs to improve their quality.
BACKGROUND: Current consensus recognizes the benefits of early intervention in palliative care consultation teams (PCCTs). As consultants, we should now attempt to improve the quality of our teams by utilizing a method mainly used in the business field. We aimed to investigate the effects of iterative evaluation of customer satisfaction surveys, filled by physicians and ward nurses in this study, for quality improvement of PCCTs. METHODS: In October 2019, the participants filled the first questionnaire survey about palliative care and PCCTs at a 678-bed hospital, and improvement areas were uncovered. Refinements were planned and implemented, and then reevaluated using the second questionnaire survey in March 2020. RESULTS: In addition to the characteristics of our clients evaluated from approximately 500 valid responses, the first survey showed that the response rate of the questionnaire, knowledge of palliative care and PCCTs, and publicity of the PCCT were recognized as issues needing attention. We planned to contrive ways to collect questionnaires, hold monthly workshops for palliative care, launch newsletters of palliative care, and go on client rounds. The second survey revealed improvements in the physicians' response rate (p = 0.02), the accuracy rate of application of PCCTs in Japan (p < 0.01), and ward nurses' confidence in opioid use (p = 0.04) and tendency toward easier accessibility to the PCCT (p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Continual quality improvements through iterative, customer satisfaction survey-driven evaluation are a widely established practice in the business field. By using this appropriately, we could enable PCCTs to improve their quality.
Authors: Lisa D DiMartino; Bryan J Weiner; Laura C Hanson; Morris Weinberger; Sarah A Birken; Katherine Reeder-Hayes; Justin G Trogdon Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Jennifer S Temel; Joseph A Greer; Alona Muzikansky; Emily R Gallagher; Sonal Admane; Vicki A Jackson; Constance M Dahlin; Craig D Blinderman; Juliet Jacobsen; William F Pirl; J Andrew Billings; Thomas J Lynch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-08-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K Jordan; M Aapro; S Kaasa; C I Ripamonti; F Scotté; F Strasser; A Young; E Bruera; J Herrstedt; D Keefe; B Laird; D Walsh; J Y Douillard; A Cervantes Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Anna Thit Johnsen; Morten Aagaard Petersen; Per Sjøgren; Lise Pedersen; Mette Asbjoern Neergaard; Anette Damkier; Christian Gluud; Peter Fayers; Jane Lindschou; Annette S Strömgren; Jan Bjoern Nielsen; Irene J Higginson; Mogens Groenvold Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Betty R Ferrell; Jennifer S Temel; Sarah Temin; Erin R Alesi; Tracy A Balboni; Ethan M Basch; Janice I Firn; Judith A Paice; Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Tanyanika Phillips; Ellen L Stovall; Camilla Zimmermann; Thomas J Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David Casarett; Amy Pickard; F Amos Bailey; Christine Ritchie; Christian Furman; Ken Rosenfeld; Scott Shreve; Zhen Chen; Judy A Shea Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-01-16 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Glenn Gade; Ingrid Venohr; Douglas Conner; Kathleen McGrady; Jeffrey Beane; Robert H Richardson; Marilyn P Williams; Marcia Liberson; Mark Blum; Richard Della Penna Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 2.947