Testing feasibility and reliability of a set of quality indicators to evaluate the organization of palliative care across Europe: a pilot study in 25 countries

Large differences in the organization of palliative care in nursing homes in six European countries: findings from the PACE cross-sectional study

Background

To be able to provide high-quality palliative care, there need to be a number of organizational structures available in the nursing homes. It is unclear to what extent such structures are actually present in nursing homes in Europe. We aim to examine structural indicators for quality of palliative care in nursing homes in Europe and to evaluate the differences in terms of availability of and access to palliative care, infrastructure for residents and families, multidisciplinary meetings and quality improvement initiatives.

Methods

A PACE cross-sectional study (2015) of nursing homes in Belgium, England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. Nursing homes (N = 322) were selected in each country via proportional stratified random sampling. Nursing home administrators (N = 305) filled in structured questionnaires on nursing home characteristics. Organization of palliative care was measured using 13 of the previously defined IMPACT structural indicators for quality of palliative care covering four domains: availability of and access to palliative care, infrastructure for residents and families, multidisciplinary meetings and quality improvement initiatives. We calculated structural indicator scores for each country and computed differences in indicator scores between the six countries. Pearson’s Chi-square test was used to compute the p-value of each difference.

Results

The availability of specialist palliative care teams in nursing homes was limited (6.1–48.7%). In Finland, Poland and Italy, specialist advice was also less often available (35.6–46.9%). Up to 49% of the nursing homes did not provide a dedicated contact person who maintained regular contact with the resident and relatives. The 24/7 availability of opioids for all nursing home residents was low in Poland (37.5%).

Conclusions

This study found a large heterogeneity between countries in the organization of palliative care in nursing homes, although a common challenge is ensuring sufficient structural access to specialist palliative care services. Policymakers and health and palliative care organizations can use these structural indicators to identify areas for improvement in the organization of palliative care.

Guideline-based quality indicators-a systematic comparison of German and international clinical practice guidelines

Background

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are relevant sources for generating quality indicators (QIs). The objective of this study was to compare guideline-based QIs of German and international CPGs and their underlying methodological approaches.

Methods

We conducted systematic searches in the guideline databases of G-I-N (Guidelines International Network) and NGC (National Guideline Clearinghouse) between February and June 2017 to identify international CPGs matching the topics of German evidence-based CPGs (n = 35) that report QIs, which were identified in a preceding study. Additionally, we searched the websites of the particular CPG providers for separate documents with regard to QIs. We included evidence-based CPGs which report QIs. Reported QIs, the underlying guideline recommendations, and information on methods of development were extracted. The selection and extraction of CPGs were conducted by one reviewer and checked by another. For each matched pair of CPGs, we assessed whether the suggested QIs matched or were not directly comparable.

Results

Twenty-five international CPGs, originating from seven CPG providers in total, met the criteria for inclusion. They matched the topics of 18 German CPGs. This resulted in 30 CPG pairs for the comparison of QIs (some of the international CPGs matched the topic of more than one German CPG). We found 27 QI pairs with QIs “not different or slightly different”, corresponding to 13% (27 of 212) of the QIs in German CPGs and 16% (27 of 166) in international CPGs. Only two QI pairs were judged to be “different/inconsistent”. For 183 of 212 (86%) QIs from German CPGs and 137 of 166 (83%) QIs from international CPGs, no direct comparison could be made. An explicit link to one or more guideline recommendations was found for 136 of 152 (89%) QIs from German CPGs and 82 of 166 (49%) QIs from international CPGs. Some information on methods for the development of QIs existed for 12 of 18 (67%) German CPGs and 8 of 25 (32%) international CPGs.

Conclusions

The majority of QIs in German and international CPGs were not comparable. Various reasons for this are conceivable. More transparent reporting of the underlying methods for generating guideline-based QIs is needed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0918-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Innovation to enhance health in care homes and evaluation of tools for measuring outcomes of care: rapid evidence synthesis

Background

Flexible, integrated models of service delivery are being developed to meet the changing demands of an ageing population. To underpin the spread of innovative models of care across the NHS, summaries of the current research evidence are needed. This report focuses exclusively on care homes and reviews work in four specific areas, identified as key enablers for the NHS England vanguard programme.

Aim

To conduct a rapid synthesis of evidence relating to enhancing health in care homes across four key areas: technology, communication and engagement, workforce and evaluation.

Objectives

(1) To map the published literature on the uses, benefits and challenges of technology in care homes; flexible and innovative uses of the nursing and support workforce to benefit resident care; communication and engagement between care homes, communities and health-related organisations; and approaches to the evaluation of new models of care in care homes. (2) To conduct rapid, systematic syntheses of evidence to answer the following questions. Which technologies have a positive impact on resident health and well-being? How should care homes and the NHS communicate to enhance resident, family and staff outcomes and experiences? Which measurement tools have been validated for use in UK care homes? What is the evidence that staffing levels (i.e. ratio of registered nurses and support staff to residents or different levels of support staff) influence resident outcomes?

Data sources

Searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) and Index to Theses. Grey literature was sought via Google™ (Mountain View, CA, USA) and websites relevant to each individual search.

Design

Mapping review and rapid, systematic evidence syntheses.

Setting

Care homes with and without nursing in high-income countries.

Review methods

Published literature was mapped to a bespoke framework, and four linked rapid critical reviews of the available evidence were undertaken using systematic methods. Data were not suitable for meta-analysis, and are presented in narrative syntheses.

Results

Seven hundred and sixty-one studies were mapped across the four topic areas, and 65 studies were included in systematic rapid reviews. This work identified a paucity of large, high-quality research studies, particularly from the UK. The key findings include the following. (1) Technology: some of the most promising interventions appear to be games that promote physical activity and enhance mental health and well-being. (2) Communication and engagement: structured communication tools have been shown to enhance communication with health services and resident outcomes in US studies. No robust evidence was identified on care home engagement with communities. (3) Evaluation: 6 of the 65 measurement tools identified had been validated for use in UK care homes, two of which provide general assessments of care. The methodological quality of all six tools was assessed as poor. (4) Workforce: joint working within and beyond the care home and initiatives that focus on staff taking on new but specific care tasks appear to be associated with enhanced outcomes. Evidence for staff taking on traditional nursing tasks without qualification is limited, but promising.

Limitations

This review was restricted to English-language publications after the year 2000. The rapid methodology has facilitated a broad review in a short time period, but the possibility of omissions and errors cannot be excluded.

Conclusions

This review provides limited evidential support for some of the innovations in the NHS vanguard programme, and identifies key issues and gaps for future research and evaluation.

Future work

Future work should provide high-quality evidence, in particular experimental studies, economic evaluations and research sensitive to the UK context.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016052933, CRD42016052933, CRD42016052937 and CRD42016052938.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Developing Macroindicators of Palliative Care Development in Africa: A Process with In-Country and International Experts

BACKGROUND

Indicators specific to the African context are important to measure palliative care (PC) development accurately.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the process used to develop a set of PC macroindicators for Africa.

DESIGN

Open-ended interviews on national PC development were conducted with five African Country Experts. Indicators were rated (1-4) by 14 Country Experts for validity and feasibility. An additional 11 interviews were conducted to ensure indicator saturation. Indicators scoring ≥3 proceeded to a modified two-round RAND/UCLA Delphi with global experts on PC development (International Committee). Finally, indicators were ranked by the project team.

SETTING/SUBJECTS

Sixteen country experts from 7 African countries and 14 International Committee members.

RESULTS

One hundred three indicators were rated by Country Experts, and 58 proceeded to the Delphi. Thirty-eight indicators were rated as important by the International Committee, and the project team ranked 19 of these as most important. Service indicators (n = 6) included the number of types of services most important in Africa (e.g., hospices, home based) and coverage. Policy indicators (n = 4) included the existence of PC in national policies, guidelines, and budget and a responsible person. Education indicators (n = 3) consisted of inclusion of PC in medical and nursing curricula and recognition as a specialty. Medicine indicators (n = 4) focused on morphine availability, consumption, and prescribing barriers. Vitality indicators (n = 2) reflected the existence of a national association and its activity.

CONCLUSION

The process to develop African-specific PC indicators resulted in 19 indicators that were used to measure PC development as a comparative baseline for development in African countries.

Integrating Palliative Care Into Comprehensive Cancer Centers: Consensus-Based Development of Best Practice Recommendations

BACKGROUND

International associations admit that specialized palliative care (SPC) is an obvious component of excellent cancer care. Nevertheless, gaps in integration at the international level have been identified. Recommendations for integrating SPC in clinical care, research, and education are needed, which are subject of the present study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Delphi study, with three written Delphi rounds, including a face-to-face-meeting with a multiprofessional expert panel (n = 52) working in SPC in 15 German Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) funded by the German Cancer Aid was initiated. Initial recommendations are built on evidence-based literature. Consensus was defined in advance with ≥80% agreement based on the question of whether each recommendation was unambiguously formulated, relevant, and realizable for a CCC.

RESULTS

A total of 38 experts (73.1%) from 15 CCCs performed all three Delphi rounds. Consensus was achieved for 29 of 30 recommendations. High agreement related to having an organizationally and spatially independent palliative care unit (≥6 beds), a mobile multiprofessional SPC team, and cooperation with community-based SPC. Until round 3, an ongoing discussion was registered on hospice volunteers, a chair of palliative care, education in SPC among staff in emergency departments, and integration of SPC in decision-making processes such as tumor boards or consultation hours. Integration of SPC in decision-making processes was not consented by a low-rated feasibility (76.3%) due to staff shortage.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations should be considered when developing standards for cancer center of excellence in Germany. Definition and implementation of indicators of integration of SPC in CCCs and evaluation of its effectiveness are current and future challenges.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

General and specialized palliative care (SPC) is an integral part of comprehensive cancer care. However, significant diversity concerning the design of SPC in the German Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) Network led to the establishment of consensual best practice recommendations for integration of SPC into the clinical structures, processes, research, and education throughout the CCC network. The recommendations contribute to a greater awareness relating to the strategic direction and development of SPC in CCCs. The access to information about SPC and access to offers regarding SPC shall be facilitated by implementing the recommendations in the course of treatment of patients with cancer.