4.6 Article

Outcome indicators in palliative care-how to assess quality and success. Focus group and nominal group technique in Germany

Journal

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
Volume 18, Issue 7, Pages 859-868

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-009-0721-4

Keywords

Palliative care; Outcome; Quality indicators; Consensus methods

Funding

  1. Deutsche Krebshilfe (German Cancer Aid) [107509]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The call for clinically relevant outcome criteria has been raised, as assessment of adequate quality of service providers is essential with increasing momentum in the development of palliative care in most European countries. The aim of this study is to investigate important dimensions and indicators for assessment and evaluation of palliative care from the perspective of multi-disciplinary German experts working over years in the field of palliative care. A focus group, using the structured consensus method of the improved nominal group technique (INGT), with nine experts from different disciplines was conducted in Germany. An abundance of topics (16) were identified, pointing at the complexity of the issue. Main topics were: quality of life, needs assessments of patients and relatives, resource assessment, surveillance of decision-making processes, as well as spiritual well-being. The following properties were claimed as essential for outcome criteria sensitivity, without additional burden on patients, easy applicability, scientific validity, and helpful for communication within the team, ethical discussions as well as for quality management. The study identified topics considered important by experts in clinical practise. The discussions exposed the diversity of demands on outcome assessment put up by different stakeholder groups. This and the high number of relevant items show the complexity for the agreement on a unique set of outcome criteria. Further research considering other perspectives is needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available