Population-Based Quality Indicators for Palliative Care Programs for Cancer Patients in Japan: A Delphi Study

Development of care quality indicators for palliative care in China: A modified Delphi method study

Objective

While there are limited studies addressing palliative care quality in China, the availability of an effective set of care quality indicators is scarce. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive set of quality indicators for palliative care in China.

Methods

Conducting a systematic literature search across databases and guideline websites from inception to October 2020, combined with qualitative interviews, we established a preliminary pool of indicators. Subsequently, two rounds of Delphi expert consultation surveys were administered to 19 multidisciplinary experts (specializing in clinical nursing/medicine, nursing/medicine management, and health care administration, as well as those engaged in teaching and research) from 12 provinces in Mainland China (three each from North, East, and South China, and four from Central China) via email from March to June 2021. The analytic hierarchy process was employed to determine indicator weights.

Results

Both rounds of expert consultation yielded a 100% positive coefficient, with expert authority coefficient values of 0.91 and 0.93, respectively. Kendall coefficient of concordance values for the two rounds were 0.148 and 0.253 (P < 0.001), indicating consensus among experts. Consequently, 71 quality indicators deemed important in the Chinese palliative care setting were identified, comprising 22 structure indicators, 35 process indicators, and 14 outcome indicators.

Conclusions

This study established an evidence-based set of quality indicators, addressing previously unmet needs and providing a novel approach to assessing and monitoring palliative care quality. Furthermore, ongoing refinement and integration with the evolving social context are warranted.

Quality of End-of-Life in Cancer Patients With Dementia: Using A Nationwide Inpatient Database

CONTEXT

The growing number of older people significantly affects end-of-life care. However, few studies have assessed the quality of end-of-life care among cancer patients with dementia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the quality of end-of-life care among non-small cell lung cancer patients with or without dementia using a nationwide inpatient database from Japan.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study that used a nationwide inpatient database of 366 acute care hospitals from April 2014 to November 2018. Poisson regression models were used where the quality indicator was the dependent variable, dementia status was the independent variable, and the age group and Charlson comorbidity index were covariates. Incidence proportion ratios (IPRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.

RESULTS

The study population included 16,758 patients, of whom 4507 (26.9%) had dementia. The incidence proportion of opioid use (61.8% vs. 70.8%; IPR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83-0.91), palliative care consultation (2.7% vs. 3.8%; IPR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.58-0.88), mechanical ventilation (4.0% vs. 5.4%; IPR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62-0.87), and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (2.2% vs. 2.8%; IPR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99) was significantly lower in patients with dementia than in those without dementia.

CONCLUSION

Patients with dementia are less likely to receive end-of-life care. This study demonstrates the importance of providing high-quality end-of-life care regardless the cognitive status of patients with cancer.

End-Of-Life Care From the Perspectives of Patients With Cancer and Their Nurses: A Qualitative Study

This study aimed to determine the needs of end-of-life cancer patients' and their nurses' perspectives and experiences regarding end of life period. A qualitative descriptive phenomenological study design was adopted comprising face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with patients and their nurses. Content analysis was conducted using the 'Induction' approach. 15 patients and 15 nurses participated in study. This study emerged three categories, nine themes for patients, and seven themes for nurses. Categories were determined according to the Donabedian model. The interviews revealed that although the nurses wanted to provide the necessary care, they could not accomplish it because of excessive workload, inadequately informed patients, and less than desired knowledge and education levels of the nurses and healthcare team. Improved care coordination and partnership working are essential for supporting both patient and their nurses at the end of life.

A multi-stage process to develop quality indicators for community-based palliative care using interRAI data

Background

Individuals receiving palliative care (PC) are generally thought to prefer to receive care and die in their homes, yet little research has assessed the quality of home- and community-based PC. This project developed a set of valid and reliable quality indicators (QIs) that can be generated using data that are already gathered with interRAI assessments—an internationally validated set of tools commonly used in North America for home care clients. The QIs can serve as decision-support measures to assist providers and decision makers in delivering optimal care to individuals and their families.

Methods

The development efforts took part in multiple stages, between 2017–2021, including a workshop with clinicians and decision-makers working in PC, qualitative interviews with individuals receiving PC, families and decision makers and a modified Delphi panel, based on the RAND/ULCA appropriateness method.

Results

Based on the workshop results, and qualitative interviews, a set of 27 candidate QIs were defined. They capture issues such as caregiver burden, pain, breathlessness, falls, constipation, nausea/vomiting and loneliness. These QIs were further evaluated by clinicians/decision makers working in PC, through the modified Delphi panel, and five were removed from further consideration, resulting in 22 QIs.

Conclusions

Through in-depth and multiple-stakeholder consultations we developed a set of QIs generated with data already collected with interRAI assessments. These indicators provide a feasible basis for quality benchmarking and improvement systems for care providers aiming to optimize PC to individuals and their families.

Quality Indicators in Palliative Radiation Oncology: Development and Pilot Testing

Purpose

A quality indicator (QI) is a valuable tool to evaluate the quality of health care systems. In palliative radiation oncology, only a few related QIs have been developed to date. In this study, we sought to develop and pilot test QIs that assess the quality of care in palliative radiation therapy.

Methods and Materials

A modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus with an expert panel. The panel consisted of 8 radiation oncologists who have expertise in palliative radiation oncology and 1 expert on Delphi methodology. Online panel meetings and e-mail surveys were conducted to develop QIs on palliative radiation therapy for bone and brain metastases. Feasibility of measurement was assessed though pilot surveys that were conducted by radiation oncologists at 5 facilities.

Results

After 3 online meetings and 2 e-mail surveys, we developed 4 QIs on bone metastases and 3 QIs on brain metastases. Two email surveys and 2 pilot surveys confirmed the validity of QIs and the feasibility of measurement, respectively.

Conclusions

We developed valid and feasible QIs on palliative radiation therapy for bone and brain metastases. Our work may contribute to reduce the evidence–practice gaps in palliative radiation oncology.

Palliative Care Development in the Asia Pacific Region: A Review of Assessment Indicators

CONTEXT

Organizations such as Asia Pacific Hospice Palliative Care Network functions to promote quality palliative care development through training and education, research collaboration and variety relevant projects and events for all in the Asia and Pacific region.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise and further compare existing development indicators used in Asia Pacific region for palliative care.

METHODS

The current review used Whittemore and Knafl 's framework for integrative reviews. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Google Scholar databases were searched for eligible studies. This review focused on palliative care development according to the domains and indicators identified by the World Health Organization Public Health Strategy and ATLANTES Palliative Care Research Group. Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists were adopted to assess the methodological quality of included studies.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included and two main findings were identified: 1) There was a strong evidence of educational preparation, use of medicines and service provision for palliative care development in Asia Pacific and 2) Professional activities and policy geared towards palliative care development were limited and had relative emphasis at a country-level in Asia Pacific.

CONCLUSION

Palliative care development is largely influenced by policies and funding structures as well as by cultural views and beliefs of stakeholders. It is expected that individuals, stakeholders and practitioners in Asia Pacific might have differing views and cultural beliefs when compared to the European or western counterparts. The lack of details and documentation in the region and inadequate reporting measures impacts on the development of strong palliative care framework.

A Population-Based Mortality Follow-Back Survey Evaluating Good Death for Cancer and Noncancer Patients: A Randomized Feasibility Study

CONTEXT

Evaluation of end-of-life care is a key element in quality improvement, and population-based mortality follow-back designs have been used in several countries. This design was adapted to evaluate a good death in Japan.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explain the scientific background and rationale for assessing the feasibility of a mortality follow-back survey using a randomized design.

DESIGN

We used a cross-sectional questionnaire survey to assess feasibility using response rate, sample representativeness, effect on response rate with two methods, and survey acceptability.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

The subjects were 4812 bereaved family members of patients who died from the major five causes of death: cancer, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, pneumonia, or kidney failure, using mortality data.

RESULTS

Overall, 682 (14.2%) questionnaires could not be delivered, and 2294 (55.5%) family members agreed to participate in the survey. There was little difference in the distribution of characteristics between the study subjects and the full population, and sample representativeness was acceptable. Sending the questionnaire with a pen achieved a higher response rate than without (weighted: 48.2% vs. 40.8%; P < 0.001). In follow-up contact, there was no difference in response rate between resending the questionnaire and a reminder letter alone (weighted: 32.9% vs. 32.4%; P = 0.803). In total, 84.8% (weighted) of the participants agreed with improving quality of care through this kind of survey.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the feasibility of conducting a population-based mortality follow-back survey using a randomized design. An attached pen with the questionnaire was effective in improving the response rate.

The Impact of Measuring Patient-Reported Outcome Measures on Quality of and Access to Palliative Care

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.

Development and Practical Test of Quality Indicators for Palliative Care in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Palliative care is highly relevant for patients with heart failure (HF), and there is a need for quantitative information on quality of care. Accordingly, this study aimed to develop a set of quality indicators (QIs) for palliative care of HF patients, and to conduct a practical pilot measurement of the proposed QIs in clinical practice.Methods and Results:We used a modified Delphi technique, a consensus method that involves a comprehensive literature review, face-to-face multidisciplinary panel meeting, and anonymous rating in 2 rounds. A 15-member multidisciplinary expert panel individually rated each potential indicator on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 9 (highest) for appropriateness. All indicators receiving a median score ≥7 without significant disagreement were included in the final set of QIs. Through the consensus-building process, 35 QIs were proposed for palliative care in HF patients. Practical measurement in HF patients (n=131) from 3 teaching hospitals revealed that all of the proposed QIs could be obtained retrospectively from medical records, and the following QIs had low performance (<10%): "Intervention by multidisciplinary team", "Opioid therapy for patients with refractory dyspnea", and "Screening for psychological symptoms".

CONCLUSIONS

The first set of QIs for palliative care of HF patients was developed and could clarify quantitative information and might improve the quality of care.

Population-Based Quality Indicators for End-of-Life Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

Importance

Improving the quality of cancer care is an international priority. Population-based quality indicators (QIs) are key to this process yet remain almost exclusively used for evaluating care during the early, often curative, stages of disease.

Objectives

To identify all existing QIs for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life and to evaluate each indicator's measurement properties and appropriateness for use.

Evidence Review

For this systematic review, 5 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception through February 4, 2019, for studies describing the development, review, and/or testing of QIs for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life. For each QI identified, descriptive information was extracted and 6 measurement properties (acceptability, evidence base, definition, feasibility, reliability, and validity) were assessed using previously established criteria, with 4 possible ratings: positive, intermediate, negative, and unknown. Ratings were collated and each QI classified as appropriate for use, inappropriate for use, or of limited testing. Among the QIs determined as appropriate for use, a recommended shortlist was generated by excluding those that were specific to patient subgroups and/or care settings; related QIs were identified, and the indicator with the highest rating was retained.

Findings

The search yielded 7231 references, 35 of which (from 28 individual studies) met the eligibility criteria. Of 288 QIs extracted (260 unique), 103 (35.8%) evaluated physical aspects of care and 109 (37.8%) evaluated processes of care. Quality indicators relevant to psychosocial (18 [6.3%]) or spiritual and cultural (3 [1.0%]) care domains were limited. Eighty QIs (27.8%) were determined to be appropriate for use, 116 (40.3%) inappropriate for use, and 92 (31.9%) of limited testing. The measurement properties with the fewest positive assessments were acceptability (38 [13.2%]) and validity (63 [21.9%]). Benchmarking data were reported for only 16 QIs (5.6%). The final 15 recommended QIs came from 6 studies.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings suggest that only a small proportion of QIs developed for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life have received adequate testing and/or are appropriate for use. Further testing may be needed, as is research to establish benchmarking data and to expand QIs relevant to psychosocial, cultural, and spiritual care domains.

Key elements for the education and counselling of patients treated with oral anticancer drugs

PURPOSE

The process of education and counselling of patients treated with oral anticancer drugs, aimed to achieve adequate self-management, involves different stakeholders (i.e. physicians, oncology nurses, pharmacists) from primary and secondary care. However, currently no guiding principles exist on how to organize and perform education and counselling for these patients. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop and build consensus on key elements for the education and counselling in patients on oral anticancer drugs.

METHODS

A multi-method approach combining a literature search, semi-structured interviews with patients and healthcare professionals, and input from experts were used to develop an initial list of key elements. Subsequently, consensus was built in a two-round Delphi-study, involving patients and healthcare professionals from primary and secondary care. Key elements were retained if at least 80% of respondents in all groups considered the element as important or if in at least one group 90% consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The initial list contained 110 key elements, divided in 7 themes: coordination of care, patient contacts: style and content, medication counselling at the start of the treatment and during follow-up, psychosocial support, and involvement of family and friends. After the first Delphi round, 80% consensus was reached for 23 elements; 6 new key elements were added. After the second round, 80% consensus was reached for 51 out of 116 elements; 31 elements were added following the 90%-rule, yielding a list of 82 elements.

CONCLUSION

The final list of 82 key elements, obtained in this study, could be used to develop clinical pathways that guide adequate education and counselling of patients on oral anticancer drugs. Due to the open description, the implementation of these elements can be adapted to the specific context and composition of the oncology team.