Franziska S. Rokoske

The PEACE project: Identification of quality measures for hospice and palliative care

CONTEXT In 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) required U.S. hospices to implement comprehensive quality improvement programs. CMS contracted with the Quality Improvement Organization in North and South Carolina to develop quality measures and instruments to assess hospice and palliative care quality. OBJECTIVES To develop a set of quality measures, with complete specifications, and data collection tools for use by hospice and palliative care providers in quality improvement. METHODS Quality measures were identified from: published literature, the National Quality Forum, CMS measures, the National Quality Measures Clearinghouse, and measures submitted by two national hospice organizations. Available data on the quality measures were gathered and pilot data were collected for measures with no available data. A Technical Expert Panel (TEP) rated quality measures on: importance, scientific soundness, feasibility and usability, using numeric scores for each dimension. Scores for quality measures were averaged across dimensions and across TEP members to identify measures for further development. RESULTS Of 174 measures identified, 88 were determined appropriate to the setting and were reviewed and rated by the TEP. Measures with overall scores ≥75th percentile (n = 23), measures with high importance scores (n = 7), measures for under-represented domains (n = 2), and process measures antecedent to TEP identified measures (n = 2), and were selected. CONCLUSIONS Specifications and data collection tools are available for 34 PEACE quality measures that were highly rated by experts in hospice and palliative care. Future research should assess the scientific soundness and responsiveness of these measures to quality improvement.

The PEACE Project Review of Clinical Instruments for Hospice and Palliative Care

BACKGROUND Hospice and palliative care organizations are expanding their use of standardized instruments and other approaches to measure quality. We undertook a systematic review and evaluation of published patient-level instruments for potential application in hospice and palliative care clinical quality measurement. METHODS We searched prior reviews and computerized reference databases from 1990 through February 2007 for studies of instruments relevant to physical, psychological, social, cultural, spiritual, or ethical aspects of palliative care, or measuring prognosis, function or continuity of care. Publications were selected for full review if they provided evidence of psychometric properties or practical application of an instrument tested in or appropriate for a hospice or palliative care population. Selected instruments were evaluated and scored for scientific soundness and potential application in clinical quality measurement. RESULTS The search found 1427 publications, with 229 selected for full manuscript review. Manuscripts provided information on 129 instruments which were evaluated using a structured scoring guide for psychometric properties. Thirty-nine instruments scoring near or above the 75th percentile were recommended. Most instruments covered multiple domains or focused on care for physical symptoms, psychological or social aspects of care. Few instruments were available to measure cultural aspects of care, structure and process of care, and continuity of care. CONCLUSION Numerous patient-level instruments are available to measure physical, psychological and social aspects of palliative care with adequate evidence for scientific soundness and practical clinical use for quality improvement and research. Other aspects of palliative care may benefit from further instrument development research.

Use of Electronic Documentation for Quality Improvement in Hospice

Little evidence exists about the use of electronic documentation (ED) in hospice and its relationship to quality improvement (QI) practices. The purposes of this study were to (1) estimate the prevalence of ED use in hospice, (2) identify organizational characteristics associated with use of ED, and (3) determine whether quality measurement practices differed based on documentation format (electronic vs nonelectronic). Surveys concerning the use of ED for QI practices and the monitoring of quality-related care and outcomes were collected from 653 hospices. Users of ED were able to monitor a wider range of quality-related data than users of non-ED. Quality components such as advanced care planning, cultural needs, experience during care of the actively dying, and the number/types of care being delivered were more likely to be documented by users of ED. Use of ED may help hospices monitor quality and compliance.

Quality improvement in hospice: adding a big job to an already big job?

Hospice organizations are adopting quality measurement and quality improvement (QI) practices to comply with the Medicare Conditions of Participation effective January 31, 2009. However, little is known about organizational best practices or specific needs during implementation. This study identified and described the barriers and facilitators to QI implementation in hospice. Using semistructured interviews with a national sample of key informants (n = 52) concerning facilitators and barriers to QI in hospice, 4 major themes emerged from the data regarding participants’ experiences and perceptions: (1) external factors constrain QI implementation; (2) internal factors limit capacity for QI; (3) research on best practices is limited; and (4) traditional QI may not be a good fit for hospice. Though challenging, participants provided recommendations that they believed would facilitate QI in hospice. Categorizing barriers and facilitators as within or outside an organization’s control may help organizations assess their capabilities and locate resources to address areas for improvement.

Hospices' Use of Electronic Medical Records for Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement Programs

CONTEXT Electronic medical records (EMRs) are increasingly viewed as essential tools for quality assurance and improvement in many care settings, but little is known about the use of EMRs by hospices in their quality assessment and performance improvement (QAPI) programs. OBJECTIVES To examine the data sources hospices use to create quality indicators (QIs) used in their QAPI programs and to examine the domains of EMR-based QIs. METHODS We used self-reported QIs (description, numerator, and denominator) from 911 hospices nationwide that participated in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services nationwide hospice voluntary reporting period. The data reflected QIs that hospices used for their internal QAPI programs between October 1 and December 31, 2011. We used the primary data sources for QIs reported by hospices and analyzed EMR-based QIs in terms of the quality domains and themes addressed. RESULTS EMRs were the most frequent data source for the QIs reported, followed by family survey and paper medical record. Physical symptom management was the largest quality domain--included in 51.5% of the reported EMR-based QIs--followed by patient safety and structure and process of care. CONCLUSION Most participating hospices use EMRs for retrieving items needed for QI calculations. EMR-based QIs address various quality domains and themes. Our findings present opportunities for potential future reporting of EMR-based quality data.

Barriers to accessing palliative care for pediatric patients with cancer: A review of the literature: Review of Pediatric Palliation Barriers

Although many of the 16,000 children in the United States diagnosed who are with cancer each year could benefit from pediatric palliative care, these services remain underused. Evidence regarding the barriers impeding access to comprehensive palliative care is dispersed in the literature, and evidence specific to pediatric oncology remains particularly sparse. The purpose of the current review was to synthesize the existing literature regarding these barriers and the strategies offered to address them. The authors completed a literature search using the PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science databases. In total, 71 articles were reviewed. Barriers to accessing pediatric palliative care were categorized according to the 4 levels of a modified socioecological model (ie, barriers related to policy/payment, health systems, organizations, and individuals). Major themes identified at each level included: 1) the lack of consistent and adequate funding mechanisms at the policy/payment level, 2) the lack of pediatric palliative care programs and workforce at the health systems level, 3) difficulties integrating palliative care into existing pediatric oncology care models at the organizational level, and 4) the lack of knowledge about pediatric palliative care, discomfort with talking about death, and cultural differences between providers and patients and their families at the individual level. Recommendations to address each of the barriers identified in the literature are included. Cancer 2018;124:2278‐88.