Assessing the quality of care for people dying of cancer in hospital: development of the QualDeath framework
Peter Hudson
A B C * , Hannah Gould A , David Marco A B , Megan Mclean D , Wendy Benson D , Maria Coperchini E , Brian Le B F G , Sue-Anne McLachlan B D , Jennifer Philip B , Mark Boughey A B and Fiona McKinnon D
A Centre for Palliative Care, St Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne and University of Melbourne, 41 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, Vic. 3065, Australia.
B Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic. 3052, Australia.
C End of Life Research Department, Vrije University, Brussels, Belgium.
D Departments of Palliative Care and Cancer, St Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy, Vic. 3065, Australia.
E Department of Palliative Care, Western Health, Footscray, Vic. 3011, Australia.
F The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Vic. 3010, Australia.
G Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Melbourne, Parkville, Vic. 3010, Australia.
Australian Health Review 47(4) 480-486 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH23001
Submitted: 16 November 2022 Accepted: 7 June 2023 Published: 11 July 2023
© 2023 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of AHHA.
Abstract
Objective High-quality end-of-life care involves addressing patients’ physical, psychosocial, cultural and spiritual needs. Although the measurement of the quality of care associated with dying and death is an important component of health care, there is a lack of evidence-based, systematic processes to examine the quality of dying and death of patients in hospital settings. Our purpose was to develop a systematic appraisal framework (QualDeath) for reviewing the quality of dying and death for patients with advanced cancer. The objectives were to: (1) explore the evidence regarding existing tools and processes related to appraisal of end-of-life care; (2) examine existing practices related to appraisal of quality of dying and death in hospital settings; and (3) develop QualDeath with consideration of potential acceptability and feasibility factors.
Methods A co-design multiple methods approach was used. For objective 1, a rapid literature review was undertaken; for objective 2 we carried out semi-structured interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders in four major teaching hospitals; and for objective 3 we interviewed key stakeholders and held workshops with the project team to reach consensus.
Results We developed QualDeath, a framework to assist hospital administrators and clinicians to systematically and retrospectively review the quality of dying and death for patients expected to die from advanced cancer. It offers four levels of potential implementation for hospitals to select from and incorporates medical record review, multidisciplinary meetings, quality of end-of-life care surveys and bereavement interviews with family carers.
Conclusions The QualDeath framework provides hospitals with recommendations to formalise processes to evaluate end-of-life care. Although QualDeath was underpinned by several research methods, further research is needed to rigorously explore its impact and test its feasibility.
Keywords: accreditation, acute care, bereavement, cancer, clinical guidelines, end of life, hospitals, outcomes, palliative care, performance and evaluation, quality and safety.
References
[1] Hoare S, Antunes B, Kelly MP, et al. End-of-life care quality measures: beyond place of death. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2022; 1–9.| End-of-life care quality measures: beyond place of death.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[2] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. National Consensus Statement: essential elements for safe and high-quality end-of-life care. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2015.
[3] Bloomer MJ, Hutchinson AM, Botti M. End-of-life care in hospital: an audit of care against Australian national guidelines. Aust Health Rev 2019; 43 578–84.
| End-of-life care in hospital: an audit of care against Australian national guidelines.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[4] Eagar K, Watters P, Currow DC, et al. The Australian Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration (PCOC) – measuring the quality and outcomes of palliative care on a routine basis. Aust Health Rev 2010; 34 186–92.
| The Australian Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration (PCOC) – measuring the quality and outcomes of palliative care on a routine basis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[5] Victoria SC. Care plan for the dying – Victoria. 2020. Available at https://www.safercare.vic.gov.au/clinical-guidance/palliative/care-plan-for-the-dying-victoria [accessed October 2022].
[6] Highet G, Crawford D, Murray SA, et al. Development and evaluation of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT): a mixed-methods study. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2014; 4 285–90.
| Development and evaluation of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT): a mixed-methods study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[7] Virdun C, Luckett T, Davidson PM, et al. Strengthening palliative care in the hospital setting: a codesign study. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2020;
| Strengthening palliative care in the hospital setting: a codesign study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Hartling L, Guise JM, Kato E, et al. A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68 1451–62.e3.
| A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[9] Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, et al. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev 2012; 1 10
| Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Miyashita M, Morita T, Sato K, et al. Good Death Inventory: a measure for evaluating good death from the bereaved family member’s perspective. J Pain Symptom Manage 2008; 35 486–98.
| Good Death Inventory: a measure for evaluating good death from the bereaved family member’s perspective.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Downey L, Curtis JR, Lafferty WE, et al. The Quality of Dying and Death Questionnaire (QODD): empirical domains and theoretical perspectives. J Pain Symptom Manage 2010; 39 9–22.
| The Quality of Dying and Death Questionnaire (QODD): empirical domains and theoretical perspectives.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3 77–101.
| Using thematic analysis in psychology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[13] Hales S, Zimmermann C, Rodin G. Review: The quality of dying and death: a systematic review of measures. Palliat Med 2010; 24 127–44.
| Review: The quality of dying and death: a systematic review of measures.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Grant M, Hudson P, Forrest A, et al. Developing a model of bereavement care in an adult tertiary hospital. Aust Health Rev 2021; 45 110–16.
| Developing a model of bereavement care in an adult tertiary hospital.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Hudson PH, Boughey C, Roulsten A. Bereavement support standards and bereavement care pathway for quality palliative care. Palliat Support Care 2017; 16 375–87.
| Bereavement support standards and bereavement care pathway for quality palliative care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Mayland CR, Keetharuth AD, Mukuria C, et al. Validation of ‘Care Of the Dying Evaluation’ (CODETM) within an international study exploring bereaved relatives’ perceptions about quality of care in the last days of life. J Pain Symptom Manage 2022; 64 e23–33.
| Validation of ‘Care Of the Dying Evaluation’ (CODETM) within an international study exploring bereaved relatives’ perceptions about quality of care in the last days of life.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[17] Klaic M, Kapp S, Hudson P, et al. Implementability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a conceptual framework. Implement Sci 2022; 17 10
| Implementability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a conceptual framework.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
