1,720,986 research outputs found
What is important to measure in the last months and weeks of life?: A modified nominal group study.
No full textBackground: Identifying the most important issues for palliative care patients and their families, and assessing whether services address these appropriately is important. Little is known about the views of United Kingdom service users and whether, and in what ways, they differ from those in the published literature from other countries, or from health professionals.
Aims: To investigate what is important to measure at the end of life from the perspectives of United Kingdom patients, bereaved relatives and health care professionals.
Methods: Ten focus groups, using a modified nominal group technique, with a total of 75 participants (10 patients, 35 professionals and 30 bereaved relatives) enabled issues participants thought important to measure at the end of life to be identified and prioritised using ratings and rankings. Thematic analysis of the data was conducted to enable cross-group comparison.
Findings: Seven themes were identified as most important to participants: symptom management; choice and control; dignity; quality of life; preparation; relationships; and co-ordination and continuity. Bereaved relatives and professionals emphasised symptom management, relationships and quality of life, whilst patients prioritised issues around preparation.
Conclusions: The study was successful in identifying aspects of end of life care that are important to patients, families and health professionals in the United Kingdom. Although participants were not representative of the wider population in the United Kingdom, the degree of concordance with published studies from outside the United Kingdom increases the credibility of the findings. Quality assurance initiatives need to ensure that they act on information such as this on users’ priorities. Further research is needed to test out the findings in other settings in the United Kingdom, to build on the findings about different participants’ views and to identify similarities and variations between countries
Measuring the quality of palliative care: a review of the literature
No full textBackground. The advent of clinical governance in British health policy has placed increased demands on health care providers and practitioners to ascertain the quality of their services. Traditional indicators of quality of health care, such as death or recovery rates, are not appropriate in palliative care. Thus, it is important to establish alternative approaches to measuring the quality of palliative care services and interventions.Aims. Satisfaction levels have been used widely in palliative care to assess quality. A literature review was conducted which aimed to explore the strengths and weaknesses of using satisfaction as an indicator of the quality of palliative care services. It also aimed to provide a solid basis upon which further work could be built.Methods. Five electronic databases were searched using key words and phrases and key authors. Hand searches were conducted of four journals that contributed significantly to the concept of satisfaction, and reference lists of reviewed papers were scrutinized. Relevant papers were reviewed, data were extracted and these data were thematically analysed.Findings. There are a number of important unresolved issues in the literature with regard to using satisfaction as an indicator of the quality of palliative care services. First, few alternatives to satisfaction are available. Secondly, satisfaction is under-theorized and no widely accepted definition exists. Thirdly, there are methodological inconsistencies across studies. It is important to take into account these findings when planning and implementing change following service evaluation using satisfaction as a measure.Conclusions. Relying on findings of satisfaction surveys to determine clinical and policy amendments in palliative care may not result in improvements in overall quality of care. Using satisfaction as a method of assessing the quality of health care services is particularly problematic and requires further investigation in both practical and conceptual terms
What methods do stakeholders prefer for feeding back performance data: a qualitative study in palliative care?
No full textObjective. To investigate the opinions of stakeholders (service commissioners and providers) on how performance data should be presented, in order to develop effective feedback methods to facilitate the use of these data in decision making.Design. A qualitative analysis of semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews. League tables and fictional box plots were presented as an illustrative guide. The themes covered in the interviews were the effectiveness of these two feedback formats, their positive and negative characteristics, and ideas for new and improved feedback mechanisms.Participants. Thirty-six stakeholders representing a range of clinical and non-clinical roles within palliative care and the wider health care system across a variety of statutory and non-statutory organizations from London and the West Midlands.Results. Box plots were received more positively than league tables, and qualitative information was considered more appropriate than pictorial feedback. Conventional methods such as league tables and box plots were judged to lack essential information on which important decisions could be based, such as additional contextual information and the methodological assumptions of the instrument. Both feedback methods were considered useful as an impetus to further discussion. There was a consensus that feedback should be constructive and able to be adapted to the organizational realities in which UK health services function.Conclusion. Qualitative research was viewed as the right evidence for gaining an understanding of the quality of end of life care. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of the lay perspective, which requires approaches that illuminate the subjective meanings of patient experience
A research study to identify facilitators and barriers to outcome measure implementation
Full text linkAim: To identify facilitators and barriers to implementing outcome measures. Methods: An action-research approach within a hospice
and nursing home was used. Staff took part in semistructured interviews pre- and post-implementation of the Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS), completed diaries and participated in monthly meetings. Findings: Qualitative content analysis identified barriers to implementation including: a top-down decision-making approach; outcome measures perceived as time-consuming to use; limited resources for data analysis; and a lack of knowledge of the importance of outcome measures. Facilitators to successful implementation include: involving all staff in decisions about implementation; and using a measure that can be adapted to organization needs and clinical practice. The benefits of using the measure are rapidly noticeable.
Conclusions: Given the need to evaluate services and the role outcome measures can have within clinical governance, this article indicates methods by which measures may be more successfully implemented
What is the potential for the use of clinical outcome measures to be computerised? Findings from a qualitative research study
No full textClinical outcome measures are used in clinical audit to monitor the quality of care provided to patients. As information technology (IT) is increasingly being integrated into the delivery of health care, computerising the use of clinical outcome measures has been proposed. However, little is known about the attitudes of health professionals towards this. Aims to understand professionals' views on adapting one clinical outcome measure--the palliative care outcome scale (POS)--for use on hand-held computers. Concludes that these results reinforce existing research on clinical outcome measures and IT in health care; identify special palliative care issues when considering the use of computerised clinical outcome measures with patients; and highlight the need for further researc
Professionals’ views and experiences of using outcome measures in palliative care
No full textIn palliative care, outcome measures are increasingly used to aid clinical practice, conduct audit and research. The objective of this study was to elicit professionals’ views and experiences of using outcome measures, paying special attention to the Palliative care Outcome Scale (POS). This article presents the results of a qualitative study of 26 professionals, experienced in using the POS, who were invited to participate in semi-structured telephone interviews. Of those invited, 22 people took part. Participants’ comments were noted verbatim throughout the interviews and data subjected to content analysis. Analysis of data identified a number of key themes surrounding outcome measures, notably their reasons for use, application in clinical settings and a range of professionals’ attitudes. The article concludes that understanding the process of outcome measures is important for improving their implementation. When undertaking further research, attention should be paid to the wider social, cultural and structural context, as factors that can influence the implementation of outcome measures. As the drive towards outcome measures continues, it is essential that measures are not developed in a vacuum. Instead they should always be informed by the needs and experiences of individuals and services
Assessing palliative care outcomes for people with motor neurone disease living at home
No full textA number of palliative care outcome measures are used to facilitate the provision of palliative care. This short article reports the use of one palliative care outcome measure, the Palliative care Outcome Scale, with people with motor neurone disease (MND) living at home. The outcome measure was generally viewed positively by those involved. However, problems with this scale itself point to the need for a specialized instrument to assess palliative care outcomes for people living with MND
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
