Quality measures for palliative care in patients with cancer: a systematic review

Using Electronic Health Records for Quality Measurement and Accountability in Care of the Seriously Ill: Opportunities and Challenges

BACKGROUND

As our population ages and the burden of chronic illness rises, there is increasing need to implement quality metrics that measure and benchmark care of the seriously ill, including the delivery of both primary care and specialty palliative care. Such metrics can be used to drive quality improvement, value-based payment, and accountability for population-based outcomes.

METHODS

In this article, we examine use of the electronic health record (EHR) as a tool to assess quality of serious illness care through narrative review and description of a palliative care quality metrics program in a large healthcare system.

RESULTS

In the search for feasible, reliable, and valid palliative care quality metrics, the EHR is an attractive option for collecting quality data on large numbers of seriously ill patients. However, important challenges to using EHR data for quality improvement and accountability exist, including understanding the validity, reliability, and completeness of the data, as well as acknowledging the difference between care documented and care delivered. Challenges also include developing achievable metrics that are clearly linked to patient and family outcomes and addressing data interoperability across sites as well as EHR platforms and vendors. This article summarizes the strengths and weakness of the EHR as a data source for accountability of community- and population-based programs for serious illness, describes the implementation of EHR data in the palliative care quality metrics program at the University of Washington, and, based on that experience, discusses opportunities and challenges. Our palliative care metrics program was designed to serve as a resource for other healthcare systems.

DISCUSSION

Although the EHR offers great promise for enhancing quality of care provided for the seriously ill, significant challenges remain to operationalizing this promise on a national scale and using EHR data for population-based quality and accountability.

Pediatric-Specific End-of-Life Care Quality Measures: An Unmet Need of a Vulnerable Population

We must ensure that the 20,000 US children (age 0 to 19 years) who die as a result of serious illness annually receive high-quality end-of-life care. Ensuring high-quality end-of-life care requires recognition that pediatric end-of-life care is conceptually and operationally different than that for adults. For example, in-hospital adult death is considered an outcome to be avoided, whereas many pediatric families may prefer hospital death. Because pediatric deaths are comparatively rare, not all centers offer pediatric-focused palliative care and hospice services. The unique psychosocial issues facing families who are losing a child include challenges for parent decision makers and young siblings. Furthermore, the focus on advance directive documentation in adult care may be less relevant in pediatrics because parental decision makers are available. Health care quality measures provide a framework for tracking the care provided and aid in agency and provider accountability, reimbursement, and educated patient choice for location of care. The National Quality Forum, Joint Commission, and other groups have developed several end-of-life measures. However, none of the current quality measures focus on the unique needs of dying pediatric patients and their caregivers. To evolve the existing infrastructure to better measure and report quality pediatric end-of-life care, we propose two changes. First, we outline how existing adult quality measures may be modified to better address pediatric end-of-life care. Second, we suggest the formation of a pediatric quality measure end-of-life task force. These are the next steps to evolving end-of-life quality measures to better fit the needs of seriously ill children.

Validation of a modified VOICES survey to measure end-of-life care quality: the CaregiverVoice survey

BACKGROUND

Measuring the care experience at end-of-life (EOL) to inform quality improvement is a priority in many countries. We validated the CaregiverVoice survey, a modified version of the VOICES questionnaire, completed by bereaved caregivers to capture perceptions of care received in the last three months of a patient's life.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective survey of bereaved caregivers representing palliative care patients who died in a residential hospice and/or received palliative homecare in Ontario, Canada. Statistical analyses were completed to establish construct and concurrent validity, as well as reliability of the survey.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 906 caregivers: 330 surveyed from homecare agencies and 576 from hospices. The CaregiverVoice survey demonstrated concurrent validity in scores correlating to FAMCARE2 items, and construct validity in performing according to expected patterns, e.g., correlation of scores to qualitative perceptions and significant variability based on care contexts such as place of death and setting of care (p < 0.01). Reliability was exhibited in good inter-item correlation of ratings for specific care settings and no significant differences in ratings regardless of whether up to a year had passed since death of patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The CaregiverVoice survey demonstrated validity and reliability in the populations assessed. This survey represents one common measure that can be standardized across multiple care settings and is useful for assessing the care experience that can help inform local and national quality improvement activities.

Palliative care and advance care planning for pancreas and other cancers

The principles of palliative care are fundamental to support and treat the physical, mental, and psychosocial health of patients living with pancreatic cancer. In addition to its proven advantages to help manage disease-related symptoms, improve accurate illness understanding, and enhance the quality of life and survival outcomes for patients with advanced disease, the inclusion of palliative care principles (whether by a specialist or by the primary oncology team) with standard oncologic care strengthens timely and quality advance care planning (ACP). The primary objective of this review article is to underscore the significant value of palliative care integration and ACP in oncology, including but not limited to care at the end of life, with a particular focus on its relevance to patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

Person-centred care dialectics-Inquired in the context of palliative care

Although a widely used concept in health care, person-centred care remains somewhat ambiguous. In the field of palliative care, person-centred care is considered a historically distinct ideal and yet there continues to be a dearth of conceptual clarity. Person-centred care is also challenged by the pull of standardization that characterizes much of health service delivery. The conceptual ambiguity becomes especially problematic in contemporary pluralistic societies, particularly in the light of continued inequities in healthcare access and disparities in health outcomes. Our aim was to explicate premises and underlying assumptions regarding person-centred care in the context of palliative care with an attempt to bridge the apparently competing agendas of individualization versus standardization, and individuals versus populations. By positioning person-centredness in relation to the hermeneutics of the self according to Paul Ricœur, dialectics between individualization and standardization, and between individuals and populations were constructed. The competing agendas were related in a dialectic manner in the way that population health is of importance for the individual, and standardization is of importance for the population. The analysis suggests that person-centred care is an ethical stance, which gives prominence to both suffering and capability of the individual as a person. The dialectic analysis points towards the importance of extending person-centred care to encompass population and societal perspectives and thereby avoiding a problematic tendency of affiliating person-centred care with exclusively individualistic perspectives. Considerations for person-centred palliative care on micro-, meso- and macrolevels conclude the paper.

The Use of a Brief 5-Item Measure of Family Satisfaction as a Critical Quality Indicator in Advanced Cancer Care: A Multisite Comparison

BACKGROUND

Although family satisfaction is recognized as a critical indicator of quality for patients with advanced cancer, it is rarely assessed as part of routine clinical care. Measurement burden may be one barrier to widespread use of family satisfaction measures.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to test the ability of a new, brief 5-item measure of family satisfaction with care to accurately capture differences across hospital settings.

DESIGN

Using data from the Palliative Care for Cancer Patients study, a prospective study of 1979 patients and caregivers, we used multivariate regression analysis to detect significant differences across five sites.

SETTINGS

Hospitalized patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers Methods: We used both the shortened 5-item version of the FAMCARE scale (previously developed using Item Response Theory) and the original 20-item FAMCARE to measure family satisfaction.

RESULTS

On the 5-item FAMCARE, sites ranged from mean scores of 5.5-6.9 out of a possible high score of 10. Family members at one care site (n = 783) were significantly (p < 0.05) less satisfied with their care than family members at four other care sites. The original 20-item measure failed to differentiate satisfaction levels between all hospital sites.

DISCUSSION

Variability in family satisfaction with advanced cancer care across hospital settings can be more sensitively detected using a brief 5-item questionnaire versus longer measures. The development of less lengthy and burdensome measures for monitoring family satisfaction, which are still valid, can facilitate routine assessments to maintain and promote high-quality care across care settings.

Capturing the Palliative Home Care Experience From Bereaved Caregivers Through Qualitative Survey Data: Toward Informing Quality Improvement

CONTEXT

Measuring palliative care experience using patient-reported outcomes is becoming important for assessing and improving quality, although most validated outcome tools solely use scaled questions.

OBJECTIVES

We analyzed open-text survey responses from bereaved caregivers to identify strengths and weaknesses in the quality of end-of-life care services and to assess the usefulness of qualitative survey data for quality improvement.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study involving bereaved caregivers of decedents who had received palliative home care services in one of six health care regions in Ontario, Canada. Using the U.K.'s validated Views of Informal Carers-Evaluation of Services survey, respondents were asked what was good and what was bad about the services provided in the last three months of life as separate open-text questions. A qualitative constant comparison approach was used to derive themes from the responses.

RESULTS

Among 330 caregivers who completed the survey, 271 (82%) caregivers responded to the open-text questions: 93% of those commented on something that was good about care and 55% on something that was bad. The care experiences were generally positive, with the exception of specific individuals or settings that were perceived as adverse. The qualitative data were more informative about deficiencies in care compared with the quantitative data.

CONCLUSION

The qualitative survey data in this study provided key recommendations toward making care more responsive to the needs of dying patients and their families. Capturing the narrative responses of bereaved caregivers is feasible and informative for palliative care program development.

Measurement of Quality of Life in Palliative Care: Evidence for Criterion-Oriented Validity of a Single-Item Approach

BACKGROUND

Assessment of quality of life is of central importance in palliative care to understand patients' needs and improve their treatment. However, due to the severely compromised state of health of the severely ill or dying patients, the possibility of an adequate assessment with longer questionnaires is limited.

OBJECTIVE

Investigation of the criterion-oriented validity of a single item to measure quality of life in palliative care patients.

DESIGN

In a cross-sectional study, correlations of the single item with established questionnaires were analyzed.

PARTICIPANTS/SETTING

At Malteser Hospital Bonn and Bonn University Hospital, 72 palliative patients, mainly suffering from cancer, were investigated.

MEASUREMENTS

Clinical symptoms were measured by the Minimal Documentation System (MIDOS) and quality of life was assessed by the single item "How satisfied are you currently with your physical and emotional well-being?" on a 7-point scale as well as by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and the Palliative Outcome Scale (POS).

RESULTS

Seventy-one of 72 patients filled in the single item and the POS, 64 patients the FACT-G. There was a high correlation between the assessment of quality of life by the single item and the FACT-G (r = 0.695, p < 0.01) as well as the POS (r = -0.630, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirms the criterion-oriented validity of the single item to measure quality of life in palliative care patients. This can be seen as a first step to validate this economic instrument. Future studies should focus on the analysis of further psychometric aspects (e.g., reliability, sensitivity to change) of the single item.

Palliative Care Quality Indicators for Patients with End-Stage Liver Disease Due to Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There are guidelines for the medical management of cirrhosis and associated quality indicators (QIs), but QIs focusing on standards for palliative aspects of care are needed.

METHODS

We convened a 9-member, multidisciplinary expert panel and used RAND/UCLA modified Delphi methods to develop palliative care quality indicators for patients with cirrhosis. Experts were provided with a report based on a systematic review of the literature that contained evidence concerning the proposed candidate QIs. Panelists rated QIs prior to a planned meeting using a standard 9-point RAND appropriateness scale. These ratings guided discussion during a day-long phone conference meeting, and final ratings were then provided by panel members. Final QI scores were computed and QIs with a final median score of greater than or equal to 7, and no disagreement was included in the final set.

RESULTS

Among 28 candidate QIs, the panel rated 19 as valid measures of quality care. These 19 quality indicators cover care related to information and care planning (13) and supportive care (6).

CONCLUSIONS

These QIs are evidence-based process measures of care that may be useful to improve the quality of palliative care. Research is needed to better understand the quality of palliative care provided to patients with cirrhosis.

Integrating Palliative Care Into Oncology: A Way Forward

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer have complex physical, psychosocial, and spiritual needs that evolve throughout their disease trajectory. As patients are living longer with a diagnosis of cancer, the need is growing to address the morbidity due to the underlying illness as well as treatment-related adverse events. Palliative care includes treating physical symptoms as well as addressing psychosocial and spiritual needs. When these needs are addressed, the quality of care improves, costs decrease, and goals are aligned between the medical care provided and the patient and family. However, how best to integrate palliative care into oncology care is still an area of investigation.

METHODS

The authors conducted a literature search, including randomized clinical trials and practice reviews, to evaluate the evidence for integrating palliative care into oncology care. Barriers to integration as well as sustainable paths forward are highlighted. The authors also utilize case studies as representative examples of integration.

RESULTS

Current studies demonstrate that integrating palliative care into oncology care improves symptom control, rates of patient and family satisfaction, and quality of end-of-life care. However, for systemwide integration to be successful, commitment must be made to quality improvement, an infrastructure must be built to support palliative care screening, assessment, and intervention, and stakeholders must be engaged in the program. In addition, value must be demonstrated using metrics that affect quality, care utilization, and patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though most US cancer centers have a palliative care program, palliative care remains limited in scope. An integrated approach for palliative care with oncology care requires a systems-based approach, with agreement between all parties on shared common metrics for value.

New Frontiers in Outpatient Palliative Care for Patients With Cancer

BACKGROUND

Although much evidence has accumulated demonstrating its benefit, relatively little is known about outpatient palliative care in patients with cancer.

METHODS

This paper reviews the literature and perspectives from content experts to describe the current state of outpatient palliative care in the oncology setting and current areas of innovation and promise in the field.

RESULTS

Evidence, including from controlled trials, documents the benefits of outpatient palliative care in the oncology setting. As a result, professional medical organizations have guidelines and recommendations based on the key role of palliative care in oncology. Six elements of the practice sit at the frontier of outpatient oncology palliative care, including the setting and timing of palliative care integration into outpatient oncology, the relationships between primary and specialty palliative care, quality and measurement, research, electronic and technical innovations, and finances.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of clinical and health care system benefits supports the recommendations of professional organizations to integrate palliative care into the routine treatment of patients with advanced cancer.

Comfort experience in palliative care: a phenomenological study

Background

Palliative care aims to provide maximum comfort to the patient. However it is unknown what factors facilitate or hinder the experience of comfort, from the perspective of inpatients of palliative care units. This lack of knowledge hinders the development of comfort interventions adjusted to these patients. The aim of this research is to describe the comfort and discomfort experienced by inpatients at palliative care units.

Methods

A phenomenological descriptive study was undertaken. Ten inpatients were recruited from a Spanish palliative care unit and seven from a Portuguese palliative care unit. Data were collected using individual interviews and analysed following the method of Giorgi.

Results

Four themes reflect the essence of the lived experience: The Palliative Care as a response to the patient’s needs with advanced disease, attempt to naturalize advanced disease, confrontation with their own vulnerability, openness to the spiritual dimension.

Conclusions

Informants revealed that they experience comfort through humanized care, differentiated environment, symptomatic control, hope and relationships. The discomfort emerges from the losses and powerlessness against their situation. Even if such findings may seem intuitive, documenting them is essential because it invites us to reflect on our convictions about what it means to be comfortable for these patients, and allows incorporating this information in the design of focused interventions to maximize the comfort experience.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12904-016-0145-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

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

CONTEXT

Cancer control programs in Japan strongly endorse the dissemination of palliative care, and various policy measures have been implemented; however, indicators for evaluating palliative care programs have not been defined.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to develop quality indicators for palliative care programs taking a population-based view to meet the challenge of cancer control in the Japanese population.

METHODS

We conducted a modified Delphi survey. The panelists rated a list of indicators over three iterative rounds according to four perspectives: 1) consistency with the policy target, 2) relevance to the problem, 3) clarity of expression, and 4) measurement feasibility. The criterion for adoption of candidate indicators was set at a total mean score of 7 or more. Finally, the most relevant and important indicators were selected; consensus was defined by agreement of panelists at the panel meeting.

RESULTS

Among 49 panelists surveyed, 48 (98%), 39 (80%), and 43 (88%) responded over the three rounds, respectively. The 15 indicators were identified from 11 domains: patient-reported quality of life, bereaved family-reported quality at the end of life, family care, place of death, bereaved family-reported quality of palliative care, specialized palliative care services, opioid utilization, public perceptions about palliative care, palliative care education to primary care providers, specialist palliative care services, and regional palliative care.

CONCLUSION

Comprehensive quality indicators for palliative care programs were identified. The indicators are currently being used, and the feasibility of measuring change over time will be examined. It is expected that the indicators will be used effectively in the future. It is important to evaluate outcomes of the program, to improve weaknesses, improve outcomes, and promote the welfare of cancer patients.

Adherence to Measuring What Matters Measures Using Point-of-Care Data Collection Across Diverse Clinical Settings

CONTEXT

Measuring What Matters (MWM) for palliative care has prioritized data collection efforts for evaluating quality in clinical practice. How these measures can be implemented across diverse clinical settings using point-of-care data collection on quality is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the implementation of MWM measures by exploring documentation of quality measure adherence across six diverse clinical settings inherent to palliative care practice.

METHODS

We deployed a point-of-care quality data collection system, the Quality Data Collection Tool, across five organizations within the Palliative Care Research Cooperative Group. Quality measures were recorded by clinicians or assistants near care delivery.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1989 first visits were included for analysis. Our population was mostly white, female, and with moderate performance status. About half of consultations were seen on hospital general floors. We observed a wide range of adherence. The lowest adherence involved comprehensive assessments during the first visit in hospitalized patients in the intensive care unit (2.71%); the highest adherence across all settings, with an implementation of >95%, involved documentation of management of moderate/severe pain. We observed differences in adherence across clinical settings especially with MWM Measure #2 (Screening for Physical Symptoms, range 45.7%-81.8%); MWM Measure #5 (Discussion of Emotional Needs, range 46.1%-96.1%); and MWM Measure #6 (Documentation of Spiritual/Religious Concerns, range 0-69.6%).

CONCLUSION

Variations in clinician documentation of adherence to MWM quality measures are seen across clinical settings. Additional studies are needed to better understand benchmarks and acceptable ranges for adherence tailored to various clinical settings.

Usability and Acceptability of the QDACT-PC, an Electronic Point-of-Care System for Standardized Quality Monitoring in Palliative Care

CONTEXT

Few resources exist to support collaborative quality monitoring in palliative care. These tools, if proven efficient through technology-enabled methods, may begin to routinize data collection on quality during usual palliative care delivery. Usability testing is a common approach to assess how easily and effectively users can interact with a newly developed tool.

OBJECTIVES

We performed usability testing of the Quality Data Collection Tool for Palliative Care (QDACT-PC) a novel, point-of-care quality monitoring tool for palliative care.

METHODS

We used a mixed methods approach to assess community palliative care clinicians' evaluations of five domains of usability. These approaches included clinician surveys after recording mock patient data to assess satisfaction; review of entered data for accuracy and time to completion; and thematic review of "think aloud" protocols to determine issues, barriers, and advantages to the electronic system.

RESULTS

We enrolled 14 palliative care clinicians for the study. Testing the electronic system vs. paper-based methods demonstrated similar error rates and time to completion. Overall, 68% of the participants believed that the electronic interface would not pose a moderate or major burden during usual clinical activities, and 65% thought it would improve the care they provided. Thematic analysis revealed significant issues with paper-based methods alongside training needs for future participants on using novel technologies that support the QDACT-PC.

CONCLUSION

The QDACT-PC is a usable electronic system for quality monitoring in palliative care. Testing reveals equivalence with paper for data collection time, but with less burden overall for electronic methods across other domains of usability.

Improving the Quality of Palliative Care Through National and Regional Collaboration Efforts

BACKGROUND

The measurement and reporting of the quality of care in the field of palliation has become a required task for many health care leaders and specialists in palliative care. Such efforts are aided when organizations collaborate together to share lessons learned.

METHODS

The authors reviewed examples of quality-improvement collaborations in palliative care to understand the similarities, differences, and future directions of quality measurement and improvement strategies in the discipline.

RESULTS

Three examples were identified that showed areas of robust and growing quality-improvement collaboration in the field of palliative care: the Global Palliative Care Quality Alliance, Palliative Care Quality Network, and Project Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends. These efforts exemplify how shared-improvement activities can inform improved practice for organizations participating in collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

National and regional collaboratives can be used to enhance the quality of palliative care and are important efforts to standardize and improve the delivery of palliative care for persons with serious illness, along with their friends, family, and caregivers.

Indicators of integration of oncology and palliative care programs: an international consensus

BACKGROUND

Recently, the concept of integrating oncology and palliative care has gained wide professional and scientific support; however, a global consensus on what constitutes integration is unavailable. We conducted a Delphi Survey to develop a consensus list of indicators on integration of specialty palliative care and oncology programs for advanced cancer patients in hospitals with ≥100 beds.

METHODS

International experts on integration rated a list of indicators on integration over three iterative rounds under five categories: clinical structure, processes, outcomes, education, and research. Consensus was defined a priori by an agreement of ≥70%. Major criteria (i.e. most relevant and important indicators) were subsequently identified.

RESULTS

Among 47 experts surveyed, 46 (98%), 45 (96%), and 45 (96%) responded over the three rounds. Nineteen (40%) were female, 24 (51%) were from North America, and 14 (30%) were from Europe. Sixteen (34%), 7 (15%), and 25 (53%) practiced palliative care, oncology, and both specialties, respectively. After three rounds of deliberation, the panelists reached consensus on 13 major and 30 minor indicators. Major indicators included two related to structure (consensus 95%-98%), four on processes (88%-98%), three on outcomes (88%-91%), and four on education (93%-100%). The major indicators were considered to be clearly stated (9.8/10), objective (9.4/10), amenable to accurate coding (9.5/10), and applicable to their own countries (9.4/10).

CONCLUSIONS

Our international experts reached broad consensus on a list of indicators of integration, which may be used to identify centers with a high level of integration, and facilitate benchmarking, quality improvement, and research.

The State of Cancer Care in America, 2015: A Report by the American Society of Clinical Oncology

In this second annual State of Cancer Care in America report, ASCO provides background and context to help understand what is happening today in cancer care and describes trends in the cancer care workforce that may affect cancer care in the coming years.