Quality criteria for paediatric oncology centres in Switzerland: A multistakeholder consensus finding process

Sarah P. Schladerer , Maria Otth , Katrin Scheinemann
{"title":"Quality criteria for paediatric oncology centres in Switzerland: A multistakeholder consensus finding process","authors":"Sarah P. Schladerer ,&nbsp;Maria Otth ,&nbsp;Katrin Scheinemann","doi":"10.1016/j.ymecc.2024.100011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Quality criteria aim to standardise and optimise the care provided to patients. Quality criteria for paediatric oncology centres exist in several countries but are missing for Switzerland. Therefore, we aimed to define quality criteria for paediatric oncology centres in Switzerland.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a three-round modified online Delphi process with 65 national stakeholders to reach a consensus on quality criteria retrieved from international sources. We asked stakeholders to decide on the relevance of categories of quality criteria (round 1), to rate (round 2) and re-rate (round 3) quality criteria regarding their relevance on a 5-point Likert scale, and to agree on a final list of quality criteria (round 3).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Twenty-nine stakeholders (response rate (RR) 45 %) participated in round 1, 23 (RR 35 %) in round 2, and 24 (RR 37 %) in round 3. In round 1, ≥ 50 % of stakeholders agreed that the six categories of facilities, multidisciplinary team and other experts, supportive care, treatment, long-term care, and volume and numbers are relevant in round 1. In round 2, ≥ 75 % of stakeholders rated 61 quality criteria as “relevant” or “very relevant”. In round 3, ≥ 75 % of stakeholders rated one additional quality criterion as “relevant” or “very relevant”, resulting in the agreement on a list of 62 relevant quality criteria.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Implementing these quality criteria can improve transparency, comparability, and, therefore, the quality of care in treatment centres. These quality criteria can be piloted nationally but need to be regularly reviewed. They may also serve as a reference for other countries.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100896,"journal":{"name":"Measurement and Evaluations in Cancer Care","volume":"3 ","pages":"Article 100011"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Measurement and Evaluations in Cancer Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949877524000066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Quality criteria aim to standardise and optimise the care provided to patients. Quality criteria for paediatric oncology centres exist in several countries but are missing for Switzerland. Therefore, we aimed to define quality criteria for paediatric oncology centres in Switzerland.

Methods

We conducted a three-round modified online Delphi process with 65 national stakeholders to reach a consensus on quality criteria retrieved from international sources. We asked stakeholders to decide on the relevance of categories of quality criteria (round 1), to rate (round 2) and re-rate (round 3) quality criteria regarding their relevance on a 5-point Likert scale, and to agree on a final list of quality criteria (round 3).

Results

Twenty-nine stakeholders (response rate (RR) 45 %) participated in round 1, 23 (RR 35 %) in round 2, and 24 (RR 37 %) in round 3. In round 1, ≥ 50 % of stakeholders agreed that the six categories of facilities, multidisciplinary team and other experts, supportive care, treatment, long-term care, and volume and numbers are relevant in round 1. In round 2, ≥ 75 % of stakeholders rated 61 quality criteria as “relevant” or “very relevant”. In round 3, ≥ 75 % of stakeholders rated one additional quality criterion as “relevant” or “very relevant”, resulting in the agreement on a list of 62 relevant quality criteria.

Conclusion

Implementing these quality criteria can improve transparency, comparability, and, therefore, the quality of care in treatment centres. These quality criteria can be piloted nationally but need to be regularly reviewed. They may also serve as a reference for other countries.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Prospective psychometric validation of the swahili translated and adapted Pediatric Patient Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (Ped-PRO-CTCAE) Performance of Subjective Global Nutrition Assessment (SGNA) in predicting nutritional status among children with cancer: A cross-sectional study Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of Templer’s death anxiety scale using item response theory Quality criteria for paediatric oncology centres in Switzerland: A multistakeholder consensus finding process Assessing needs at the workplace: The development of a questionnaire for oncology professionals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1