4.5 Article

Are we heading in the same direction? European and African doctors' and nurses' views and experiences regarding outcome measurement in palliative care

期刊

PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 242-249

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0269216311409614

关键词

Evidence-based practice; nurses; outcome assessment (health care); palliative care; physicians

资金

  1. European Commission [Health-F2-2008-201655]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine and compare doctors' and nurses' views and experiences regarding outcome measurement in palliative care, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods: A web-based survey developed through expert review and piloting was conducted in Europe and Africa with palliative care professionals working in clinical care, audit and research. Results: The overall participation rate was 42% (663/1592) and the overall completion rate was 59% (392/663). Of these respondents, 196 were doctors (51% male, mean 47 years) and 104 were nurses (84% female, mean 45 years). Doctors' most common reported reasons for not using tools were time constraints followed by lack of training. For nurses, it was lack of training followed by time constraints. Provision of information and guidance influenced willingness to use measures. For those that used tools, most reported favourable outcome measurement experiences. Both prioritized brief PROMs, and measures that included physical and psychological domains. For clinical purposes, the main advantage for doctors was assessment/screening, and clinical decision making for nurses. For research, doctors were most influenced by a measure's comparability with national/international literature followed by its validation in palliative care. For nurses, validation in palliative care was followed by tool access. Conclusion: Overall these respondents shared similar views and experiences, and both were influenced by similar factors. Multidisciplinary outcome measurement education and training is feasible and required. Multidimensional and brief PROMs that include physical and psychological domains need to be prioritized, and access to freely available, validated and translated tools is needed to ensure cross-national comparisons and coordination of international research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据