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 , Maria Otth , 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.