Evaluation of the Measuring and Improving Quality in Palliative Care Survey.

Dy SM, Sharma R, Kuchinad K, Liew ZR, Abu Al Hamayel N, Hannum SM, Zhu J, Kamal AH, Walling AM, Lorenz KA, Isenberg SR. Evaluation of the Measuring and Improving Quality in Palliative Care Survey. Journal of oncology practice. 2018 Dec 1; 14(12):e834-e843.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability, content validity, and variation among sites of a survey to assess facilitators and barriers to quality measurement and improvement in palliative care programs. METHODS: We surveyed a sample of diverse US and Canadian palliative care programs and conducted postcompletion discussion groups. The survey included constructs addressing educational support and training, communication, teamwork, leadership, and prioritization for quality measurement and improvement. We tested internal consistency reliability, described variation among sites, and reported descriptive feedback on content validity. RESULTS: Of 103 respondents in 11 sites, the most common roles were attending physician (38.9%) and nurse practitioner, clinical nurse specialist, or physician assistant (16.5%). Internal consistency reliability was acceptable (Cronbach''s a = .70 to .99) for all but one construct. Results varied across sites by more than 1 point on the 1 to 5 scales between the 10th and 90th percentiles of sites for two constructs in recognition and focus on quality measurement (score range by site, 1.7 to 4.8), one construct in teamwork (score range, 3.1 to 4.6), and five constructs in quality improvement (score range, 1.8 to 4.6). In descriptive content validity evaluation, respondents described the survey as an opportunity for assessing quality initiatives and discussing potential improvements, particularly improvements in communication, training, and engagement of team members regarding program quality efforts. CONCLUSION: This survey to assess palliative care team perspectives on barriers and facilitators for quality measurement and improvement demonstrated reliability, content validity, and initial evidence of variation among sites. Our findings highlight how palliative care team members'' perspectives may be valuable to plan, evaluate, and monitor quality-of-care initiatives.