Quality indicators for Palliative Day Services: A modified Delphi study.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND::The goal of Palliative Day Services is to provide holistic care that contributes to the quality of life of people with life-threatening illness and their families. Quality indicators provide a means by which to describe, monitor and evaluate the quality of Palliative Day Services provision and act as a starting point for quality improvement. However, currently, there are no published quality indicators for Palliative Day Services. AIM::To develop and provide the first set of quality indicators that describe and evaluate the quality of Palliative Day Services. DESIGN AND SETTING::A modified Delphi technique was used to combine best available research evidence derived from a systematic scoping review with multidisciplinary expert appraisal of the appropriateness and feasibility of candidate indicators. The resulting indicators were compiled into 'toolkit' and tested in five UK Palliative Day Service settings. RESULTS::A panel of experts independently reviewed evidence summaries for 182 candidate indicators and provided ratings on appropriateness, followed by a panel discussion and further independent ratings of appropriateness, feasibility and necessity. This exercise resulted in the identification of 30 indicators which were used in practice testing. The final indicator set comprised 7 structural indicators, 21 process indicators and 2 outcome indicators. CONCLUSION::The indicators fulfil a previously unmet need among Palliative Day Service providers by delivering an appropriate and feasible means to assess, review, and communicate the quality of care, and to identify areas for quality improvement.
Project description:BACKGROUND: This study aimed at evaluating face and content validity, feasibility and reliability of process quality indicators developed previously in the United States or other countries. The indicators can be used to evaluate care and services for vulnerable older adults affected by cognitive impairment or dementia within an integrated service system in Quebec, Canada. METHODS: A total of 33 clinical experts from three major urban centres in Quebec formed a panel representing two medical specialties (family medicine, geriatrics) and seven health or social services specialties (nursing, occupational therapy, psychology, neuropsychology, pharmacy, nutrition, social work), from primary or secondary levels of care, including long-term care. A modified version of the RAND(R)/University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) appropriateness method, a two-round Delphi panel, was used to assess face and content validity of process quality indicators. The appropriateness of indicators was evaluated according to a) agreement of the panel with three criteria, defined as a median rating of 7-9 on a nine-point rating scale, and b) agreement among panellists, judged by the statistical measure of the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry. Feasibility of quality assessment and reliability of appropriate indicators were then evaluated within a pilot study on 29 patients affected by cognitive impairment or dementia. For measurable indicators the inter-observer reliability was calculated with the Kappa statistic. RESULTS: Initially, 82 indicators for care of vulnerable older adults with cognitive impairment or dementia were submitted to the panellists. Of those, 72 (88%) were accepted after two rounds. Among 29 patients for whom medical files of the preceding two years were evaluated, 63 (88%) of these indicators were considered applicable at least once, for at least one patient. Only 22 indicators were considered applicable at least once for ten or more out of 29 patients. Four indicators could be measured with the help of a validated questionnaire on patient satisfaction. Inter-observer reliability was moderate (Kappa = 0.57). CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary panel of experts judged a large majority of the initial indicators valid for use in integrated care systems for vulnerable older adults in Quebec, Canada. Most of these indicators can be measured using patient files or patient or caregiver interviews and reliability of assessment from patient-files is moderate.
Project description:With an ageing population and increasing numbers of people with life-limiting illness, there is a growing demand for palliative day services. There is a need to measure and demonstrate the quality of these services, but there is currently little agreement on which aspects of care should be used to do this. The aim of the scoping review will be to map the extent, range and nature of the evidence around models of delivery, care domains and existing quality indicators used to evaluate palliative day services.Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) will be searched for evidence using consensus development methods; randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials; mixed methods; and prospective, longitudinal or retrospective case-control studies to develop or test quality indicators for evaluating palliative care within non-residential settings, including day hospices and community or primary care settings. At least two researchers will independently conduct all searches, study selection and data abstraction procedures. Meta-analyses and statistical methods of synthesis are not planned as part of the review. Results will be reported using numerical counts, including number of indicators in each care domain and by using qualitative approach to describe important indicator characteristics. A conceptual model will also be developed to summarise the impact of different aspects of quality in a palliative day service context. Methodological quality relating to indicator development will be assessed using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) tool. Overall strength of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Final decisions on quality assessment will be made via consensus between review authors.Identifying, developing and implementing evidence-based quality indicators is critical to the evaluation and continued improvement of palliative care. Review findings will be used to support clinicians and policymakers make decisions on which quality indicators are most appropriate for evaluating day services at the patient and service level, and to identify areas for further research.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Systems for monitoring effectiveness and quality of rehabilitation services across health care levels are needed. The purpose of this study was to develop and pilot test a quality indicator set for rehabilitation of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. METHODS:The set was developed according to the Rand/UCLA Appropriateness Method, which integrates evidence review, in-person multidisciplinary expert panel meetings and repeated anonymous ratings for consensus building. The quality indicators were pilot-tested for overall face validity and feasibility in 15 specialist and 14 primary care rehabilitation units. Pass rates (percentages of "yes") of the indicators were recorded in telephone interviews with 29 unit managers (structure indicators), and 164 patients (process and outcome indicators). Time use and participants' numeric rating of face validity (0-10, 10 = high validity) were recorded. RESULTS:Nineteen structure, 12 process and five outcome indicators were developed and piloted. Mean (range) sum pass rates for the structure, process and outcome indicators were 59%(84%), 66%(100%) and 84%(100%), respectively. Mean (range) face validity score for managers/patients was 8.3 (8)/7.9 (9), and mean answering time was 6.0/5.5 min. The final indicator set consists of 19 structure, 11 process and three outcome indicators. CONCLUSION:To our knowledge this is the first quality indicator set developed for rehabilitation of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Good overall face validity and a feasible format indicate a set suitable for monitoring quality in rehabilitation. The variation in pass rates between centers indicates a potential for quality improvement in rheumatic and musculoskeletal rehabilitation in Norway.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The aim of this study was to explore expert professionals' opinions on service provision to children under six with life-limiting neurodevelopmental disabilities (LLNDD), including the goals of care and the integration and coordination of palliative care in general and specialist services. METHODS:A Delphi design was used with three questionnaire rounds, one open-ended and two closed response rounds. Primary data collected over a six-month period from expert professionals with five years' (or more) experience in pediatric, intellectual disability and/or palliative care settings. Ratings of agreement and prioritization were provided with agreement expressed as a median (threshold?=?80%) and consensus reported as interquartile ranges. Stability was measured using non-parametric tests. RESULTS:Primary goals of care were achievement of best possible quality of life, effective communication and symptom management. Service integration and coordination were considered inadequate, and respondents agreed that areas of deficiency included palliative care. Improvement strategies included a single care plan, improved communication and key worker appointments. CONCLUSIONS:The findings suggest that services do not serve this group well with deficiencies in care compounded by a lack of information on available services and sub-optimal communication between settings. Further research is needed to develop an expert-based consensus regarding the care of children with LLNDD.
Project description:Implementation strategies are methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of a new program or practice. Recent studies have facilitated implementation strategy prioritization by mapping strategies based on their feasibility and importance, but these efforts have not been replicated across distinct service delivery contexts. The aim of the current project was to evaluate the feasibility and importance of an education-adapted taxonomy of implementation strategies and to directly compare feasibility and importance ratings to the original Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy, the leading compilation of implementation strategies in healthcare. A sample of 200 school-based consultants who support social, emotional, and mental health services provided ratings of feasibility and importance for each of the 75 strategies included in the adapted School Implementation Strategies, Translating ERIC Resources (SISTER) compilation. Results identified strategies rated as: (a) both feasible and important, (b) important but not feasible, (c) feasible but not important, and (d) neither feasible nor important. When mapped onto scatterplots using feasibility and importance ratings, comparison of ERIC and SISTER ratings indicated that approximately one third of the strategies shifted from one quadrant of the feasibility and importance axis to another. Findings demonstrate the value of efforts to adapt and generalize existing implementation products to novel service settings, such as schools. Additionally, findings assist implementation researchers and practitioners in prioritizing the selection of actionable and practically relevant implementation strategies to advance the quality of school mental health services.
Project description:Some of the challenges in the delivery of high-quality end-of-life care in the ICU include the variability in the characteristics of patients with certain illnesses and the practice of critical care by different specialties.We examined whether ICU attending specialty was associated with quality of end-of-life care by using data from a clustered randomized trial of 14 hospitals. Patients died in the ICU or within 30 h of transfer and were categorized by specialty of the attending physician at time of death (medicine, surgery, neurology, or neurosurgery). Outcomes included family ratings of satisfaction, family and nurse ratings of quality of dying, and documentation of palliative care in medical records. Associations were tested using multipredictor regression models adjusted for hospital site and for patient, family, or nurse characteristics.Of 3,124 patients, the majority were cared for by an attending physician specializing in medicine (78%), with fewer from surgery (12%), neurology (3%), and neurosurgery (6%). Family satisfaction did not vary by attending specialty. Patients with neurology or neurosurgery attending physicians had higher family and nurse ratings of quality of dying than patients of attending physicians specializing in medicine (P < .05). Patients with surgery attending physicians had lower nurse ratings of quality of dying than patients with medicine attending physicians (P < .05). Chart documentation of indicators of palliative care differed by attending specialty.Patients cared for by neurology and neurosurgery attending physicians have higher family and nurse ratings of quality of dying than patients cared for by medicine attending physicians and have a different pattern of indicators of palliative care. Patients with surgery attending physicians had fewer documented indicators of palliative care. These findings may provide insights into potential ways to improve the quality of dying for all patients.ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT00685893; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.
Project description:Background and Aims:Key performance indicators [KPIs] exist across a range of areas in medicine. They help to monitor outcomes, reduce variation, and drive up standards across services. KPIs exist for inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] care, but none specifically cover inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] surgical service provision. Methods:This was a consensus-based study using a panel of expert IBD clinicians from across Europe. Items were developed and fed through a Delphi process to achieve consensus. Items were ranked on a Likert scale from 1 [not important] to 5 [very important]. Consensus was defined when the inter quartile range was ? 1, and items with a median score > 3 were considered for inclusion. Results:A panel of 21 experts [14 surgeons and 7 gastroenterologists] was recruited. Consensus was achieved on procedure-specific KPIs for ileocaecal and perianal surgery for Crohn's disease, [N = 10] with themes relating to morbidity [N = 7], multidisciplinary input [N = 2], and quality of life [N = 1]; and for subtotal colectomy, proctocolectomy and ileoanal pouch surgery for ulcerative colitis [N = 11], with themes relating to mortality [N = 2], morbidity [N = 8], and service provision [N = 1]. Consensus was also achieved for measures of the quality of IBD surgical service provision and quality assurance in IBD surgery. Conclusions:This study has provided measurable KPIs for the provision of surgical services in IBD. These indicators cover IBD surgery in general, the governance and structures of the surgical services, and separate indicators for specific subareas of surgery. Monitoring of IBD services with these KPIs may reduce variation across services and improve quality.
Project description:The aim of this systematic scoping review was to identify and analyze indicators that address implementation quality or success in health care services and to deduce recommendations for further indicator development. This review was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Manual and the PRISMA Statement. CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched. Studies or reviews published between August 2008 and 2018 that reported monitoring of the quality or the implementation success in health care services by using indicators based on continuous variables and proportion-based, ratio-based, standardized ratio-based, or rate-based variables or indices were included. The records were screened by title and abstract, and the full-text articles were also independently double-screened by 3 reviewers for eligibility. In total, 4376 records were identified that resulted in 10 eligible studies, including 67 implementation indicators. There was heterogeneity regarding the theoretical backgrounds, designs, objectives, settings, and implementation indicators among the publications. None of the indicators addressed the implementation outcomes of appropriateness or sustainability. Service implementation efficiency was identified as an additional outcome. Achieving consensus in framing implementation outcomes and indicators will be a new challenge in health services research. Considering the new debates regarding health care complexity, the further development of indicators based on complementary qualitative and quantitative approaches is needed.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Anxiety disorders and depression are frequent conditions in childhood and adolescence. eMental healthcare technologies may improve access to services, but their uptake within health systems is limited. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this review was to examine and describe how the implementation of eMental healthcare technologies for anxiety disorders and depression in children and adolescents has been studied. METHODS:We conducted a search of 5 electronic databases and gray literature. Eligible studies were those that assessed an eMental healthcare technology for treating or preventing anxiety or depression, included children or adolescents (<18 years), or their parents or healthcare providers and reported findings on technology implementation. The methodological quality of studies was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Outcomes of interest were based on 8 implementation outcomes: acceptability (satisfaction with a technology), adoption (technology uptake and utilization), appropriateness ("fitness for purpose"), cost (financial impact of technology implementation), feasibility (extent to which a technology was successfully used), fidelity (implementation as intended), penetration ("spread" or "reach" of the technology), and sustainability (maintenance or integration of a technology within a healthcare service). For extracted implementation outcome data, we coded favorable ratings on measurement scales as "positive results" and unfavorable ratings on measurement scales as "negative results." Those studies that reported both positive and negative findings were coded as having "mixed results." RESULTS:A total of 46 studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were rated as very good to excellent in methodological quality. These studies investigated eMental healthcare technologies for anxiety (n=23), depression (n=18), or both anxiety and depression (n=5). Studies of technologies for anxiety evaluated the following: (1) acceptability (78%) reported high levels of satisfaction, (2) adoption (43%) commonly reported positive results, and (3) feasibility (43%) reported mixed results. Studies of technologies for depression evaluated the following: (1) appropriateness (56%) reported moderate helpfulness and (2) acceptability (50%) described a mix of both positive and negative findings. Studies of technologies designed to aid anxiety and depression commonly reported mixed experiences with acceptability and adoption and positive findings for appropriateness of the technologies for treatment. Across all studies, cost, fidelity, and penetration and sustainability were the least measured implementation outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Acceptability of eMental healthcare technology is high among users and is the most commonly investigated implementation outcome. Perceptions of the appropriateness and adoption of eMental healthcare technology were varied. Implementation research that identifies, evaluates, and reports on costs, sustainability, and fidelity to clinical guidelines is crucial for making high-quality eMental healthcare available to children and adolescents.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Indicators of guideline adherence are frequently used to examine the appropriateness of healthcare services. Only some potential indicators are actually usable for research with routine administrative claims data, potentially leading to a biased selection of research questions. This study aimed at developing a systematic approach to extract potential indicators from clinical practice guidelines (CPG), evaluate their feasibility for research with claims data and assess how the extracted set reflected different types of healthcare services. Diabetes mellitus (DM), Swiss national guidelines and health insurance claims data were analysed as a model case. METHODS:CPG for diabetes patients were retrieved from the Swiss Endocrinology and Diabetes Society website. Recommendation statements involving a specific healthcare intervention for a defined patient population were translated into indicators of guideline adherence. Indicators were classified according to disease stage and healthcare service type. We assessed for all indicators whether they could be analysed with Swiss mandatory health insurance administrative claims data. RESULTS:A total of 93 indicators were derived from 15 CPG, representing all sectors of diabetes care. For 63 indicators, the target population could not be identified using claims data only. For 67 indicators, the intervention could not be identified. Nine (10%) of all indicators were feasible for research with claims data (three addressed gestational diabetes and screening, five screening for complications and one glucose measurement). Some types of healthcare services, eg, management of risk factors, treatment of the disease and secondary prevention, lacked corresponding indicators feasible for research. CONCLUSIONS:Our systematic approach could identify a number of indicators of healthcare service utilisation, feasible for DM research with Swiss claims data. Some areas of healthcare were covered less well. The approach could be applied to other diseases and countries, helping to identify the potential bias in the selection of indicators and optimise research.