Prasanna Ananth1,2, Sophia Mun2, Noora Reffat2, Soo Jung Kang2, Sarah Pitafi2, Xiaomei Ma2,3, Cary P Gross2,4, Joanne Wolfe5,6,7. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. 2. Yale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, New Haven, CT. 3. Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. 5. Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA. 7. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There are no existing quality measures (QMs) to optimize end-of-life care for children with cancer. Previously, we developed a set of 26 candidate QMs. Our primary objective in this study was to achieve stakeholder consensus on priority measures. METHODS: We conducted an iterative, cross-sectional electronic survey, using a modified Delphi method to build consensus among clinician and family stakeholders. In each of the two rounds of surveys, stakeholders were asked to rate QMs on a 9-point Likert scale, on the basis of perceived importance. Health care professionals were additionally asked to rate measures on perceived feasibility. After each round, we computed median scores on importance and feasibility of measurement, retaining QMs with median importance scores ≥ 8. RESULTS: Twenty-five participants completed both rounds of the survey. In round 1, participants were asked to rate 26 QMs; nine QMs, including QMs pertaining to health care use, were removed because of median importance scores < 8. Two new measures were proposed for consideration in round 2, on the basis of participant feedback. Following round 2, 17 QMs were ultimately retained. QMs related to symptom screening and palliative care consultation were rated highly in importance and feasibility. QMs related to communication were rated highly important, yet less feasible. Measuring whether a patient's needs were heard by their health care team was rated among the least feasible. CONCLUSION: Childhood cancer stakeholders prioritized QMs pertaining to patient-reported outcomes, deeming measures of health care resource use less important. Future research should seek to develop novel tools for quality assessment to enhance feasibility of implementing priority measures.
PURPOSE: There are no existing quality measures (QMs) to optimize end-of-life care for children with cancer. Previously, we developed a set of 26 candidate QMs. Our primary objective in this study was to achieve stakeholder consensus on priority measures. METHODS: We conducted an iterative, cross-sectional electronic survey, using a modified Delphi method to build consensus among clinician and family stakeholders. In each of the two rounds of surveys, stakeholders were asked to rate QMs on a 9-point Likert scale, on the basis of perceived importance. Health care professionals were additionally asked to rate measures on perceived feasibility. After each round, we computed median scores on importance and feasibility of measurement, retaining QMs with median importance scores ≥ 8. RESULTS: Twenty-five participants completed both rounds of the survey. In round 1, participants were asked to rate 26 QMs; nine QMs, including QMs pertaining to health care use, were removed because of median importance scores < 8. Two new measures were proposed for consideration in round 2, on the basis of participant feedback. Following round 2, 17 QMs were ultimately retained. QMs related to symptom screening and palliative care consultation were rated highly in importance and feasibility. QMs related to communication were rated highly important, yet less feasible. Measuring whether a patient's needs were heard by their health care team was rated among the least feasible. CONCLUSION: Childhood cancer stakeholders prioritized QMs pertaining to patient-reported outcomes, deeming measures of health care resource use less important. Future research should seek to develop novel tools for quality assessment to enhance feasibility of implementing priority measures.
Authors: Anna P Schenck; Franziska S Rokoske; Danielle D Durham; John G Cagle; Laura C Hanson Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Jessica Penn Lendon; Sangeeta C Ahluwalia; Anne M Walling; Karl A Lorenz; Oluwatobi A Oluwatola; Rebecca Anhang Price; Denise Quigley; Joan M Teno Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2014-12-24 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Emily E Johnston; Jannelle Molina; Isaac Martinez; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Erin R Currie; Terra Crowl; Lori Butterworth; Lisa J Chamberlain; Smita Bhatia; Abby R Rosenberg Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 6.860