A framework for assessing quality indicators for cancer care at the end of life.

Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA.
Journal of pain and symptom management (Impact Factor: 2.74). 09/2009; 38(6):903-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.04.024
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Patients with advanced cancer often do not receive high-quality pain and symptom management or support with coordination of care, communication, and decision making. Implementing quality indicators that are reflective of the scope of care, feasible to implement, and supported by evidence might help to identify areas and settings most in need of improvement. However, recent reviews and policy initiatives identified only a few indicators that met these criteria. To help advance quality indicator development and implementation in this area, we developed a conceptual framework based on previous related initiatives, updated reviews of end-of-life cancer quality indicators and relevant data sources, and expert input. The framework describes five steps for developing and assessing a quality indicator for end-of-life care, defining the 1) population of focus, 2) broad quality domains, 3) specific target areas, 4) steps of the care process, and 5) evaluation criteria for quality indicators. The defined population includes seriously or terminally ill cancer patients, who are unlikely to recover or stabilize, and their families. Domains include the structure and processes of care; the physical, psychiatric, psychosocial, spiritual, and cultural aspects of care; as well as the care of the imminently dying, ethical and legal issues, and the delivery of care. Evaluation criteria include importance; scientific acceptability, including validity, evidence to improve outcomes, reliability, responsiveness, and variability; usability; and feasibility, including ready data sources. By using this conceptual framework, indicator developers, researchers, and policymakers can refine and implement indicator sets to effectively evaluate and improve care at the end of life.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A well-organized palliative care service is a prerequisite for offering good palliative care. Reliable and feasible quality indicators are needed to monitor the quality of their organization. To test feasibility and reliability of a previously developed set of quality indicators in settings and services that provide palliative care across Europe. A total of 38 quality indicators, applicable in all types of settings, rated in a RAND Delphi process, and operationalized into 38 yes/no questions, were used. Descriptives statistics, factor and reliability analyses, analysis of variance, and chi-square analyses were used. Cross-sectional online survey. Questionnaires were sent to representatives of 217 palliative care settings in 25 countries. Included settings were hospices, inpatient dedicated palliative care beds, palliative care outpatient clinics, palliative care units, day care centers for palliative care, palliative care home support teams, inpatient palliative care support teams, care homes, and nursing homes. All invited 25 European Association of Palliative Care countries took part. In total, 107 out of 217 participants responded (57%). The quality indicators were reduced to four coherent sub-scales, being "equipment and continuity of care," "structured documentation of essential palliative care elements in the medical record," "training and appraisal of personnel," and "availability of controlled drugs." No significant differences in quality criteria between the different types of settings and services were identified. The set of quality indicators appeared to measure four reliable domains that assess the organization of different palliative care settings. It can be used as a starting point for quality improvement activities. © The Author(s) 2015.
    Palliative Medicine 02/2015; 29(2):157-63. DOI:10.1177/0269216314562100 · 2.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Large numbers of vulnerable patients are in need of palliative cancer and dementia care. However, a wide gap exists between the knowledge of best practices in palliative care and their use in everyday clinical practice. As part of a European policy improvement program, quality indicators (QIs) have been developed to monitor and improve the organisation of palliative care for patients with cancer and those with dementia in various settings in different European countries.
    BMC Health Services Research 09/2014; 14(1):396. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-14-396 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to examine geographic and race/ethnic disparities in access to end of life care among elderly patients with lung cancer. The study sample consisted of 91,039 Medicare beneficiaries with lung cancer who died in 2008. The key outcome measures included the number of emergency room visits, the number of inpatient admissions and the number of intensive care unit (ICU) days in the last 90 days of life, hospice care ever used and hospice enrollment within the last 3 days of life. Medicare beneficiaries with lung cancer residing in rural, remote rural, and micropolitan areas had more ER visits in the last 90 days of life as compared to urban residents. Urban residents however, had more ICU days in the last 90 days of life and were more likely to have ever used hospice as compared to residents of rural, remote rural and micropolitan counties. Racial minority lung cancer patients had more ICU days, ER visits and inpatient days than non-Hispanic White patients, and also were less likely to have ever used hospice care or be enrolled in hospice in the last 3 days of life. Lung cancer patients with very low socioeconomic status (SES) were less likely to ever use hospice or be enrolled in hospice care in the last 3 days of life, as compared to those who had very high SES. Geographic, racial and socioeconomic disparities in end of life care call for targeted efforts to address access barriers for these groups of patients.
    Journal of Community Health 03/2014; 39(5). DOI:10.1007/s10900-014-9850-x · 1.28 Impact Factor