31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How Can We Improve Outcomes for Patients and Families Under Palliative Care? Implementing Clinical Audit for Quality Improvement in Resource Limited Settings

      review-article
      ,
      Indian Journal of Palliative Care
      Medknow Publications
      Audit, Outcomes, Quality improvement, Quality of care

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Palliative care in India has made enormous advances in providing better care for patients and families living with progressive disease, and many clinical services are well placed to begin quality improvement initiatives, including clinical audit. Clinical audit is recognized globally to be essential in all healthcare, as a way of monitoring and improving quality of care. However, it is not common in developing country settings, including India. Clinical audit is a cyclical activity involving: identification of areas of care in need of improvement, through data collection and analysis utilizing an appropriate questionnaire; setting measurable quality of care targets in specific areas; designing and implementing service improvement strategies; and then re-evaluating quality of care to assess progress towards meeting the targets. Outcome measurement is an important component of clinical audit that has additional advantages; for example, establishing an evidence base for the effectiveness of services. In resource limited contexts, outcome measurement in clinical audit is particularly important as it enables service development to be evidence-based and ensures resources are allocated effectively. Key success factors in conducting clinical audit are identified (shared ownership, training, managerial support, inclusion of all members of staff and a positive approach). The choice of outcome measurement tool is discussed, including the need for a culturally appropriate and validated measure which is brief and simple enough to incorporate into clinical practice and reflects the holistic nature of palliative care. Support for clinical audit is needed at a national level, and development and validation of an outcome measurement tool in the Indian context is a crucial next step.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Development and validation of a core outcome measure for palliative care: the palliative care outcome scale. Palliative Care Core Audit Project Advisory Group.

          To develop an outcome measure for patients with advanced cancer and their families which would cover more than either physical symptoms or quality of life related questions. To validate the measure in various specialist and non-specialist palliative care settings throughout the UK. A systematic literature review of measures appropriate for use in palliative care settings was conducted. In conjunction with a multidisciplinary project advisory group, questions were chosen for inclusion into the scale based on whether they measured aspects of physical, psychological, or spiritual domains pertinent to palliative care, and whether similar items had shown to be valid as part of another measure. A staff completed version was developed to facilitate data collection on all patients throughout their care, and a patient completed version was designed to enable the patient to contribute to the assessment of their outcomes when possible. A full validation study was conducted to evaluate construct validity, internal consistency, responsiveness to change over time, and test-retest reliability. Assessments were timed. Eight centres in England and Scotland providing palliative care, including inpatient care, outpatient care, day care, home care, and primary care. A total of 450 patients entered care during the study period. Staff collected data routinely on patients in care long enough to be assessed (n = 337). Of these, 262 were eligible for patient participation; 148 (33%) went on to complete a questionnaire. The Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS), the European Organisation for Research on Cancer Treatment, and the Support Team Assessment Schedule. The POS consists of two almost identical measures, one of which is completed by staff, the other by patients. Agreement between staff and patient ratings was found to be acceptable for eight out of 10 items at the first assessment. The measure demonstrated construct validity (Spearman rho = 0.43 to 0.80). Test/re-test reliability was acceptable for seven items. Internal consistency was good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.65 (patients), 0.70 (staff)). Change over time was shown, but did not reach statistical significance. The questionnaire did not take more than 10 minutes to complete by staff or patients. The POS has acceptable validity and reliability. It can be used to assess prospectively palliative care for patients with advanced cancer.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Translation procedures for standardised quality of life questionnaires: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) approach.

            The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life (EORTC QL) questionnaires are used in international trials and therefore standardised translation procedures are required. This report summarises the EORTC translation procedure, recent accomplishments and challenges. Translations follow a forward-backward procedure, independently carried out by two native-speakers of the target language. Discrepancies are arbitrated by a third consultant, and solutions are reached by consensus. Translated questionnaires undergo a pilot-testing. Suggestions are incorporated into the final questionnaire. Requests for translations originate from the module developers, physicians or pharmaceutical industry, and most translations are performed by professional translators. The translation procedure is managed and supervised by a Translation Coordinator within the EORTC QL Unit in Brussels. To date, the EORTC QLQ-C30 has been translated and validated into more than 60 languages, with further translations in progress. Translations include all major Western, and many African and Asian languages. The following translation problems were encountered: lack of expressions for specific symptoms in various languages, the use of old-fashioned language, recent spelling reforms in several European countries and different priorities of social issues between Western and Eastern cultures. The EORTC measurement system is now registered for use in over 9000 clinical trials worldwide. The EORTC provides strong infrastructure and quality control to produce robust translated questionnaires. Nevertheless, translation problems have been identified. The key to improvements may lie in the particular features and strengths of the group, consisting of researchers from 21 countries representing 25 languages and include the development of simple source versions, the use of advanced computerised tools, rigorous pilot-testing, certification procedures and insights from a unique cross-cultural database of nearly 40,000 questionnaire responses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Validation of a core outcome measure for palliative care in Africa: the APCA African Palliative Outcome Scale

              Background Despite the burden of progressive incurable disease in Africa, there is almost no evidence on patient care or outcomes. A primary reason has been the lack of appropriate locally-validated outcome tools. This study aimed to validate a multidimensional scale (the APCA African Palliative Outcome Scale) in a multi-centred international study. Methods Validation was conducted across 5 African services and in 3 phases: Phase 1. Face validity: content analysis of qualitative interviews and cognitive interviewing of POS; Phase 2. Construct validity: correlation of POS with Missoula-Vitas Quality of Life Index (Spearman's rank tests); Phase 3. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha calculated twice using 2 datasets), test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients calculated for 2 time points) and time to complete (calculated twice using 2 datasets). Results The validation involved 682 patients and 437 family carers, interviewed in 8 different languages. Phase 1. Qualitative interviews (N = 90 patients; N = 38 carers) showed POS items mapped well onto identified needs; cognitive interviews (N = 73 patients; N = 29 carers) demonstrated good interpretation; Phase 2. POS-MVQoLI Spearman's rank correlations were low-moderate as expected (N = 285); Phase 3. (N = 307, 2nd assessment mean 21.2 hours after first, SD 7.2) Cronbach's Alpha was 0.6 on both datasets, indicating expected moderate internal consistency; test-retest found high intra-class correlation coefficients for all items (0.78-0.89); median time to complete 7 mins, reducing to 5 mins at second visit. Conclusions The APCA African POS has sound psychometric properties, is well comprehended and brief to use. Application of this tool offers the opportunity to at last address the omissions of palliative care research in Africa.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Indian J Palliat Care
                IJPC
                Indian Journal of Palliative Care
                Medknow Publications (India )
                0973-1075
                1998-3735
                Jan-Apr 2010
                : 16
                : 1
                : 8-15
                Affiliations
                King’s College London, Department of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, Bessemer Road, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9PJ, UK
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Lucy Selman; E-mail: lucy.selman@ 123456kcl.ac.uk
                Article
                IJPC-16-8
                10.4103/0973-1075.63128
                2936087
                20859465
                0f0bade4-d154-43a8-b034-b316f0385bda
                © Indian Journal of Palliative Care

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Review Article

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                outcomes,audit,quality of care,quality improvement
                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                outcomes, audit, quality of care, quality improvement

                Comments

                Comment on this article