Quality indicators for palliative care services: mixed-method study testing for face validity, feasibility, discriminative power and usefulness

Development of Measures for d/Deaf and Hard of Hearing Stigma: Introduction to the Special Supplement on Stigma Measurement Tools

People who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/DHH) often experience stigma and discrimination in their daily lives. Qualitative research describing their lived experiences has provided useful, in-depth insights into the pervasiveness of stigma. Quantitative measures could facilitate further investigation of the scope of this phenomenon. Thus, under the auspices of the Lancet Commission on Hearing Loss, we developed and preliminarily validated survey measures of different types of stigma related to d/Deafness and hearing loss in the United States (a high-income country) and Ghana (a lower-middle income country). In this introductory article, we first present working definitions of the different types of stigma; an overview of what is known about stigma in the context of hearing loss; and the motivation underlying the development of measures that capture different types of stigma from the perspectives of different key groups. We then describe the mixed-methods exploratory sequential approach used to develop the stigma measures for several key groups: people who are d/DHH, parents of children who are d/DHH, care partners of people who are d/DHH, healthcare providers, and the general population. The subsequent manuscripts in this special supplement of Ear and Hearing describe the psychometric validation of the various stigma scales developed using these methods.

Measurement and documentation of quality indicators for the end-of-life care of hospital patients a nationwide retrospective record review study

BACKGROUND

Quality of care at the end of life in hospitals is often perceived to be lower compared to the care that is provided to people who die in their own home. Documenting and measuring indicators of common end-of-life symptoms could help improve end-of-life care in hospitals. This study provided insight into quality indicators for the end-of-life care of patients who died in a Dutch hospital, and assessed differences between deceased patients who were admitted for palliative/terminal care versus patients admitted for other reasons.

METHODS

In a retrospective record review study, trained nurses reviewed electronic health records (EHRs) of patients who died in 2019 (n = 2998), in a stratified sample of 20 Dutch hospitals. The nurses registered whether data was found in de EHRs about quality indicators for end-of-life care. This concerned: symptoms (pain, shortness of breath, anxiety, depressive symptoms), spiritual and psychological support and advance care planning. Multilevel regression analyses were performed to assess differences between patients who had been admitted for palliative/terminal care and patients admitted for other reasons.

RESULTS

Common end-of-life symptoms were rarely measured using a standardized method (e.g. Numeric Rating Scale, Visual Analogue Scale or Utrecht Symptom Diary). The symptom burden of pain was measured using a standardized method more often (63.3%) than the symptom burden of shortness of breath (2.2%), anxiety (0.5%) and depressive symptoms (0.3%). Similarly, little information was documented in the EHRs regarding wish to involve a spiritual counsellor, psychologist or social worker. Life expectancy was documented in 66%. The preferred place of death was documented less often (20%). The documentation of some quality indicators differed between patients who were admitted for palliative/terminal care compared to other patients.

CONCLUSION

Except for the burden of pain, symptoms are rarely measured with standardized methods in patients who died in Dutch Hospitals. This study underlines the importance of documenting information about symptom burden and aspects related to advance care planning, and spiritual and psychological support to improve the quality of end-of-life care for patients in hospitals. Furthermore, uniformity in measuring methods improves the possibility to compare results between patient groups and settings.

The association between phase of illness and resource utilisation-a potential model for demonstrating clinical efficiency?

Background: Healthcare efficiency involves demonstrating flexible inter-relationships between resource utilisation and patient need. In palliative care, five phases of patient illness have been identified: stable, unstable, deteriorating, terminal and bereaved. Evaluating the association between phase of illness and nursing activities could demonstrate clinical efficiency. Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between the phase of illness and the intensity of nursing care in a specialist palliative care unit. Methods: This was a prospective, observational cohort study of consecutive admissions (n=400) to a specialist palliative care unit. Patient phase of illness was documented on admission and daily thereafter. A nursing activity tool was developed, which scored daily nursing interventions (physical, psychological, family care and symptom control). This score was called the nursing total score (NTS) and reflected the intensity of nursing activities. Data were entered into SPSS and descriptive statistics weregenerated. Results: A total of 342 (85%) patients had full data recorded on admission. Stable, unstable, deteriorating and terminal phases were associated with progressively increasing median NTSs on days 1, 2, 3 and 4 (all P<0.01). Phase stabilisation from the unstable to the stable phase during this timeframe resulted in reductions in physical care (p=0.038), symptom management (p=0.007) and near-significant reductions in family support (p=0.06). Conclusion: A significant association was demonstrated between phase of illness and intensity of nursing activities, which were sensitive to phase changes, from unstable to stable. This demonstrates technically efficient resource utilisation and identifies a potential efficiency model for future evaluations of inpatient palliative care.

Identifying Core Domains to Assess the "Quality of Death": A Scoping Review

CONTEXT

There is growing recognition of the value to patients, families, society, and health systems in providing healthcare, including end-of-life care, that is consistent with both patient preferences and clinical guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

Identify the core domains and subdomains that can be used to evaluate the performance of end-of-life care within and across health systems.

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE (NCBI), PsycINFO (ProQuest), and CINAHL (EBSCO) databases were searched for peer-reviewed journal articles published prior to February 22, 2020. The SPIDER tool was used to determine search terms. A priori criteria were followed with independent review to identify relevant articles.

RESULTS

A total of 309 eligible articles were identified out of 2728 discrete results. The articles represent perspectives from the broader health system (11), patients (70), family and informal caregivers (65), healthcare professionals (43), multiple viewpoints (110), and others (10). The most common condition of focus was cancer (103) and the majority (245) of the studies concentrated on high-income country contexts. The review identified five domains and 11 subdomains focused on structural factors relevant to end-of-life care at the broader health system level, and two domains and 22 subdomains focused on experiential aspects of end-of-life care from the patient and family perspectives. The structural health system domains were: 1) stewardship and governance, 2) resource generation, 3) financing and financial protection, 4) service provision, and 5) access to care. The experiential domains were: 1) quality of care, and 2) quality of communication.

CONCLUSION

The review affirms the need for a people-centered approach to managing the delicate process and period of accepting and preparing for the end of life. The identified structural and experiential factors pertinent to the "quality of death" will prove invaluable for future efforts aimed to quantify health system performance in the end-of-life period.

Nationwide evaluation of palliative care (Q-PAC study) provided by specialized palliative care teams using quality indicators : Large variations in quality of care

BACKGROUND

Although a number of quality indicators for palliative care have been implemented worldwide, evidence regarding the performance of palliative care teams is scarce.

AIM

Evaluating the quality of palliative care using quality indicators; to describe the variation in quality between palliative care teams; and to suggest quality benchmarks for these teams.

DESIGN

A repeated cross-sectional study design to collect quality indicator data by means of a validated quality indicator set in 36 Belgian palliative care teams at home and in hospitals. Risk-adjustment procedures, taking into account patient-mix, were applied to suggest benchmarks.

PARTICIPANTS

Between 2014 and 2017, five quality measurements with questionnaires were conducted in 982 patients receiving palliative care, 4701 care providers and 1039 family members of deceased patients.

RESULTS

A total of 7622 assessments were received. Large risk-adjusted variations between the different palliative care teams were identified in: regularly updating patient files (IQR: 12%-39%), having multidisciplinary consultations about care objectives (IQR: 51%-73%), discussing end-of-life care decisions with patients (IQR: 26%-71%-92%), relieving shortness of breath (IQR: 57%-78%), regularly assessing pain (IQR: 43%-74%) and symptoms by means of validated scales (IQR: 23%-60%), initiating palliative care at least 2 weeks before death (IQR: 30%-50%), and weekly contact with the GP in the last 3 months of life (IQR 16%-43%).

CONCLUSION

The large risk-adjusted variation found across the quality indicator scores suggest that repeated and standardized quality improvement evaluations can allow teams to benchmark themselves to each other to identify areas of their palliative care delivery that need improvement.

Pilot Study to Develop and Test Palliative Care Quality Indicators for Nursing Homes

An increasingly frail population in nursing homes accentuates the need for high quality care at the end of life and better access to palliative care in this context. Implementation of palliative care and its outcomes can be monitored by using quality indicators. Therefore, we developed a quality indicator set for palliative care in nursing homes and a tailored measurement procedure while using a mixed-methods design. We developed the instrument in three phases: (1) literature search, (2) interviews with experts, and (3) indicator and measurement selection by expert consensus (RAND/UCLA). Second, we pilot tested and evaluated the instrument in nine nursing homes in Flanders, Belgium. After identifying 26 indicators in the literature and expert interviews, 19 of them were selected through expert consensus. Setting-specific themes were advance care planning, autonomy, and communication with family. The quantitative and qualitative analyses showed that the indicators were measurable, had good preliminary face validity and discriminative power, and were considered to be useful in terms of quality monitoring according to the caregivers. The quality indicators can be used in a large implementation study and process evaluation in order to achieve continuous monitoring of the access to palliative care for all of the residents in nursing homes.

Quality indicators for community dementia care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of an up-to-date body of evidence and a comprehensive overview concerning literature on quality indicator (QI) development for dementia care. Therefore, we systematically reviewed recent literature and formulated recommendations for future research.

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies describing QI development or redefinition for dementia care (from first symptoms until admission to long-term care), published from 2008 to May 2019.

RESULTS

We included a total of 7 articles, comprising of 107 QIs. The majority of publications originated from Europe. These applied to outpatient care, primary care and end-of-life care. Most QIs referred to care processes. Several care domains were determined by the authors, ranging from screening and assessment to end-of-life care. The methodological quality of the QI sets differed considerably. The QI sets with the best methodological quality were developed using expert evaluation or a Delphi technique.

CONCLUSIONS

It can be concluded that a reasonable amount of QIs for assessing and optimizing community dementia care exists, however, further development and methodological improvements of these QIs are necessary. Involvement of people with dementia and caregivers in the development process and a broader focus including community oriented next to medically oriented QIs are examples of potential improvement measures.

Primary palliative care for older people in three European countries: a mortality follow-back quality study

BACKGROUND

Many older people with serious chronic illnesses experience complex health problems for which palliative care is indicated. We aimed to examine the quality of primary palliative care for people aged 65-84 years and those 85 years and older who died non-suddenly in three European countries.

METHODS

This is a nationwide representative mortality follow-back study. General practitioners (GPs) belonging to epidemiological surveillance networks in Belgium (BE), Italy (IT) and Spain (ES) (2013-2015) registered weekly all deaths in their practices. We included deaths of people aged 65 and excluded sudden deaths judged by GPs. We applied a validated set of quality indicators.

RESULTS

GPs registered 3496 deaths, of which 2329 were non-sudden (1126 aged 65-84, 1203 aged 85+). GPs in BE (reference category) reported higher scores than IT across almost all indicators. Differences with ES were not consistent. The score in BE particularly differed from IT on GP-patient communication (aged 65-84: 61% in BE vs 20% in IT (OR=0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20) aged 85+: 47% in BE vs 9% in IT (OR=0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.16)). Between BE and ES, we identified a large difference in involvement of palliative care services (aged 65-84: 62% in BE vs 89% in ES (OR=4.81, 95% CI 2.41 to 9.61) aged 85+: 61% in BE vs 77% in ES (OR=3.1, 95% CI 1.71 to 5.53)).

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable country differences were identified in the quality of primary palliative care for older people. The data suggest room for improvement across all countries, particularly regarding pain measurement, GP-patient communication and multidisciplinary meetings.

Family carer support in home and hospital: a cross-sectional survey of specialised palliative care

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate: (1) to what extent family carers of people supported by specialised palliative care services felt they had been provided with information, support and aftercare and (2) how this varied by type of palliative care service, length of enrolment and characteristics of deceased.

METHODS

A cross-sectional postal survey was conducted using a structured questionnaire with nine items on information, support and aftercare provided by specialised palliative care services to family carers. Flemish family carers of people who had made use of specialised palliative care services at home or in hospital were contacted.

RESULTS

Of all primary family carers (response rate of 53.5% resulting in n=1504), 77.7% indicated they were asked frequently by professionals how they were feeling. Around 75% indicated they had been informed about specific end-of-life topics and around 90% felt sufficiently supported before and immediately after the death. Family carers of people who had died in a palliative care unit, compared with other types of specialised palliative care services, indicated having received more information, support and aftercare.

CONCLUSIONS

Family carers evaluate the professional assistance provided more positively when death occurred in a palliative care unit. Policy changes might be needed to reach the same level of care across all specialised palliative care services.

Quality of primary palliative care for older people with mild and severe dementia: an international mortality follow-back study using quality indicators

Background

measuring the quality of primary palliative care for older people with dementia in different countries is important to identify areas where improvements can be made.

Objective

using quality indicators (QIs), we systematically investigated the overall quality of primary palliative care for older people with dementia in three different countries.

Design/setting

a mortality follow-back survey through nation- and region-wide representative Sentinel Networks of General Practitioners (GPs) in Belgium, Italy and Spain. GPs registered all patient deaths in their practice. We applied a set of nine QIs developed through literature review and expert consensus.

Subjects

patients aged 65 or older, who died non-suddenly with mild or severe dementia as judged by GPs (n = 874).

Results

findings showed significantly different QI scores between Belgium and Italy for regular pain measurement (mild dementia: BE = 44%, IT = 12%, SP = 50% | severe dementia: BE = 41%, IT = 9%, SP = 47%), acceptance of approaching death (mild: BE = 59%, IT = 48%, SP = 33% | severe: BE = 41%, IT = 21%, SP = 20%), patient-GP communication about illness (mild: BE = 42%, IT = 6%, SP = 20%) and involvement of specialised palliative services (mild: BE = 60%, IT = 20%, SP = 77%). The scores in Belgium differed from Italy and Spain for patient-GP communication about medical treatments (mild: BE = 34%, IT = 12%, SP = 4%) and repeated multidisciplinary consultations (mild: BE = 39%, IT = 5%, SP = 8% | severe: BE = 36%, IT = 10%, SP = 8%). The scores for relative-GP communication, patient death outside hospitals and bereavement counselling did not differ between countries.

Conclusion

while the countries studied differed considerably in the overall quality of primary palliative care, they have similarities in room for improvement, in particular, pain measurement and prevention of avoidable hospitalisations.

Identification and Prioritization of Quality Indicators for Conservative Kidney Management

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Conservative kidney management is holistic patient-centered care for patients with kidney failure that focuses on delaying the progression of kidney disease and symptom management, without the provision of renal replacement therapy. Currently there is no consensus as to what constitutes high-quality conservative kidney management. We aimed to develop a set of quality indicators for the conservative management of kidney failure.

STUDY DESIGN

Nominal group technique and Delphi survey process.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

16 patients and caregivers from Calgary, Canada, participated in 2 nominal group meetings. 91 multidisciplinary health care professionals from 10 countries took part in a Delphi process.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Nominal group technique study of patients and caregivers was used to identify and prioritize a list of quality indicators. A 4-round Delphi process with health care professionals was used to rate the quality indicators until consensus was reached (defined as a mean rating on the Likert scale ≥7.0 and percent agreement >75%). Quality indicators that met criteria for consensus inclusion in the Delphi survey were ranked, and comparisons were made with nominal group priorities.

RESULTS

99 quality indicators met consensus criteria for inclusion. The most highly rated quality indicator in the Delphi process was the "percentage of patients that die in the place they desire." There was significant discordance between priorities of the nominal groups with that of the Delphi survey, with only 1 quality indicator being shared on each groups' top 10 list of quality indicators.

LIMITATIONS

Participants were largely from high-income English-speaking countries, and most already had structured conservative kidney management programs in place, all potentially limiting generalizability.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality of conservative kidney management care is important to patients, caregivers, and health care professionals. However, discordant quality indicator priorities between groups suggested that care providers delivering conservative kidney management may not prioritize what is most important to those receiving this care. Conservative kidney management programs and health care providers can improve the applicability of this consensus-based quality indicator list to their program by further developing and evaluating it for use in their program.

Differences in primary palliative care between people with organ failure and people with cancer: An international mortality follow-back study using quality indicators

BACKGROUND

Measuring the quality of palliative care in a systematic way using quality indicators can illuminate differences between patient groups.

AIM

To investigate differences in the quality of palliative care in primary care between people who died of cancer and people who died of organ failure.

DESIGN

Mortality follow-back survey among general practitioners in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain (2013-2014), and Italy (2013-2015). A standardized registration form was used to construct quality indicators regarding regular pain measurement, acceptance of the approaching end of life, communication about disease-related topics with patient and next-of-kin; repeated multidisciplinary consultations; involvement of specialized palliative care; place of death; and bereavement counseling.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Patients (18+) who died non-suddenly of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or respiratory disease ( n = 2360).

RESULTS

In all countries, people who died of cancer scored higher on the quality indicators than people who died of organ failure, particularly with regard to pain measurement (between 17 and 35 percentage-point difference in the different countries), the involvement of specialized palliative care (between 20 and 54 percentage points), and regular multidisciplinary meetings (between 12 and 24 percentage points). The differences between the patient groups varied by country, with Belgium showing most group differences (eight out of nine indicators) and Spain the fewest (two out of nine indicators).

CONCLUSION

People who died of organ failure are at risk of receiving lower quality palliative care than people who died of cancer, but the differences vary per country. Initiatives to improve palliative care should have different priorities depending on the healthcare and cultural context.

Systematic Quality Monitoring For Specialized Palliative Care Services: Development of a Minimal Set of Quality Indicators for Palliative Care Study (QPAC)

Background:

A feasibility evaluation of a comprehensive quality indicator set for palliative care identified the need for a minimal selection of these indicators to monitor quality of palliative care services with short questionnaires for the patients, caregivers, and family carers.

Objectives:

To develop a minimal indicator set for efficient quality assessment in palliative care.

Design:

A 2 round modified Research ANd Development corporation in collaboration with the University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) expert consultation.

Setting/Patients:

Thirteen experts in palliative care (professionals and patient representatives).

Measurements:

In a home assignment, experts were asked to score 80 developed indicators for “priority” to be included in the minimal set on a scale from 0 (lowest priority) to 9 (highest priority). The second round consisted of a plenary meeting in which the minimal set was finalized.

Results:

Thirty-nine of the 80 indicators were discarded, while 19 were definitely selected after the home assignment, and 22 were proposed for discussion during the meeting; 12 of these survived the selection round. The final minimal indicator set for palliative care consists of 5 indicators about the physical aspects of care; 6 about the psychosocial aspects of care; 13 about information, communication, and care planning; 5 about type of care; and 2 about continuity of care.

Conclusion:

A minimal set of 31 indicators reflecting all the important issues in palliative care was created for palliative care services to assess the quality of their care in a quick and efficient manner. Additional topic-specific optional modules are available for more thorough assessment of specific aspects of care.

Measuring what matters: top-ranked quality indicators for hospice and palliative care from the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine and Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association

CONTEXT

Measuring quality of hospice and palliative care is critical for evaluating and improving care, but no standard U.S. quality indicator set exists.

OBJECTIVES

The Measuring What Matters (MWM) project aimed to recommend a concise portfolio of valid, clinically relevant, cross-cutting indicators for internal measurement of hospice and palliative care.

METHODS

The MWM process was a sequential consensus project of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM) and Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association (HPNA). We identified candidate indicators mapped to National Consensus Project (NCP) Palliative Care Guidelines domains. We narrowed the list through a modified Delphi rating process by a Technical Advisory Panel and Clinical User Panel and ratings from AAHPM and HPNA membership and key organizations.

RESULTS

We narrowed the initial 75 indicators to a final list of 10. These include one in the NCP domain Structure and Process (Comprehensive Assessment), three in Physical Aspects (Screening for Physical Symptoms, Pain Treatment, and Dyspnea Screening and Management), one in Psychological and Psychiatric Aspects (Discussion of Emotional or Psychological Needs), one in Spiritual and Existential Aspects (Discussion of Spiritual/Religious Concerns), and three in Ethical and Legal Aspects (Documentation of Surrogate, Treatment Preferences, and Care Consistency with Documented Care Preferences). The list also recommends a global indicator of patient/family perceptions of care, but does not endorse a specific survey instrument.

CONCLUSION

This consensus set of hospice and palliative care quality indicators is a foundation for standard, valid internal quality measurement for U.S.

SETTINGS

Further development will assemble implementation tools for quality measurement and benchmarking.