Quality in health care : QHC最新文献

Objectives: To develop an outcome measure for patients with advanced cancer and their families which would cover more than either physical symptoms or quality of life related questions. To validate the measure in various specialist and non-specialist palliative care settings throughout the UK.

Design: A systematic literature review of measures appropriate for use in palliative care settings was conducted. In conjunction with a multidisciplinary project advisory group, questions were chosen for inclusion into the scale based on whether they measured aspects of physical, psychological, or spiritual domains pertinent to palliative care, and whether similar items had shown to be valid as part of another measure. A staff completed version was developed to facilitate data collection on all patients throughout their care, and a patient completed version was designed to enable the patient to contribute to the assessment of their outcomes when possible. A full validation study was conducted to evaluate construct validity, internal consistency, responsiveness to change over time, and test-retest reliability. Assessments were timed.

Setting: Eight centres in England and Scotland providing palliative care, including inpatient care, outpatient care, day care, home care, and primary care.

Patients: A total of 450 patients entered care during the study period. Staff collected data routinely on patients in care long enough to be assessed (n = 337). Of these, 262 were eligible for patient participation; 148 (33%) went on to complete a questionnaire.

Main measures: The Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS), the European Organisation for Research on Cancer Treatment, and the Support Team Assessment Schedule.

Results: The POS consists of two almost identical measures, one of which is completed by staff, the other by patients. Agreement between staff and patient ratings was found to be acceptable for eight out of 10 items at the first assessment. The measure demonstrated construct validity (Spearman rho = 0.43 to 0.80). Test/re-test reliability was acceptable for seven items. Internal consistency was good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.65 (patients), 0.70 (staff)). Change over time was shown, but did not reach statistical significance. The questionnaire did not take more than 10 minutes to complete by staff or patients.

Conclusion: The POS has acceptable validity and reliability. It can be used to assess prospectively palliative care for patients with advanced cancer.

Clinical governance has been introduced as a new approach to quality improvement in the UK national health service. This article maps clinical governance against a discussion of the four main approaches to measuring and improving quality of care: quality assessment, quality assurance, clinical audit, and quality improvement (including continuous quality improvement). Quality assessment underpins each approach. Whereas clinical audit has, in general, been professionally led, managers have driven quality improvement initiatives. Quality assurance approaches have been perceived to be externally driven by managers or to involve professional inspection. It is discussed how clinical governance seeks to bridge these approaches. Clinical governance allows clinicians in the UK to lead a comprehensive strategy to improve quality within provider organisations, although with an expectation of greatly increased external accountability. Clinical governance aims to bring together managerial, organisational, and clinical approaches to improving quality of care. If successful, it will define a new type of professionalism for the next century. Failure by the professions to seize the opportunity is likely to result in increasingly detailed external control of clinical activity in the UK, as has occurred in some other countries.

Background: A growing number of new ways of organising services across the primary/secondary interface are being introduced and evaluated. The principal motive for such reorganisation is to improve the efficiency of health care. However, unless the impact of the new services on patients is investigated and taken into account, it is possible that patients' reactions could be negative, a factor that could lead to unexpected consequences in the use and costs of services.

Objective: To develop a measure of patients' attitudes towards care across the interface between primary and secondary care.

Design: Generation of questions to be included in the measure from a qualitative study of patients' experiences of care across the interface; administration of pilot versions of the measure to samples of patients referred to secondary care; refinement of questions guided by analysis of response patterns, principal components analysis and internal consistency; administration of the final version of the patient career diary in complete form retrospectively to patients referred to secondary care, and one section alone to patients attending outpatient departments for follow up appointments. Face validity was assessed by analysis of open comments in a sample of 50 diaries, and review of the diary by 34 health professionals. Construct validity was assessed by investigation of levels of correlation between components of each section of the diary and the components of the healthcare section overall.

Setting: In the final field test, patients were attending various hospital services, including cardiology, dermatology, neurology, gynaecology, general surgery, general medicine, ophthalmology, trauma and orthopaedics, and gastroenterology.

Results: The final version of the diary included 109 questions in seven sections: general practitioner (GP) visits and referral, other GP visits, first outpatient visit, other outpatient visits, inpatient stay and discharge, care after discharge, and care overall. Response rates were poor for retrospective completion of the entire diary, but excellent when a section was given separately. Principal components analysis confirmed that components relating to issues identified as important to patients in the qualitative study had been included in the diary. Levels of internal consistency were good, and comments of patients and health professionals supported validity.

Conclusion: The patient career diary is a valid and reliable measure of patients' attitudes to care across the interface. It should be given in sections to ensure adequate response rates, and is suitable for use in the evaluation or quality of patterns of care across the interface. In future, the impact on patients of new ways of organising services across the interface should be investigated by use of measures such as the patient career diary.