Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30285709›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2018

Study protocol: evaluation of specialized outpatient palliative care in the German state of Hesse (ELSAH study) - work package I: assessing the quality of care.

Katrin Kuss, Hannah Seipp, Dorothée Becker, Stefan Bösner, Antje Erler, Dania Gruber, Michaela Hach, Lisa R Ulrich, Jörg Haasenritter

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Katrin KussDepartment of General Practice/ Family Medicine, Philipps-University Marburg, Karl-von-Frisch-Strasse 4, 35032, Marburg, Germany. kuss@uni-marburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0094-2682
Hannah SeippDepartment of General Practice/ Family Medicine, Philipps-University Marburg, Karl-von-Frisch-Strasse 4, 35032, Marburg, Germany.
Dorothée BeckerProfessional Association of Specialized Outpatient Palliative Care in Hesse, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Stefan BösnerDepartment of General Practice/ Family Medicine, Philipps-University Marburg, Karl-von-Frisch-Strasse 4, 35032, Marburg, Germany.
Antje ErlerInstitute of General Practice, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Dania GruberInstitute of General Practice, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Michaela HachProfessional Association of Specialized Outpatient Palliative Care in Hesse, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Lisa R UlrichInstitute of General Practice, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Jörg HaasenritterDepartment of General Practice/ Family Medicine, Philipps-University Marburg, Karl-von-Frisch-Strasse 4, 35032, Marburg, Germany.

Funding

Innovation fund ('Innovationsfonds') of the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA, Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss) of Germany 01VSF16006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Germany, patients suffering from life-limiting conditions are eligible for specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC). Evaluation of the quality of this service lacks currently integration of patient-relevant outcomes. There is also no scientific consensus how to prove quality of care in the special context of SOPC adequately. Existing quality reports are primarily based on descriptive structural data which do not allow for estimation of process quality or result quality. The ELSAH study ('Evaluation of Specialized Outpatient Palliative Care in the German state of Hesse') aims to choose - or, if necessary, to adopt - to evaluate and to implement a suit of measures to assess, evaluate and monitor the quality of specialized, home-based palliative care.

methodsAll 22 SOPC teams providing their services in the state of Hesse, Germany, participate in the ELSAH study. The study is divided in two phases: a preparation phase and a main study phase. Based on the findings of the preparation phase we have chosen a preliminary set of instruments including the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale, Views on Care, Zarit Burden Interview, Phase of Illness, Goal Attainment Scaling, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, Consumer Quality Indices Palliative Care and Sense of Security in Care. During the main study phase, we will use a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the instruments' psychometric properties (reliability, validity, feasibility and practicability), to identify barriers, facilitators and limitations of their routine use and to explore how their use affects the care within the SOPC setting. DISCUSSION: At the end of this study, an outcome- and patient-centered, validated measurement approach should be provided, adapted for standardized evaluations in SOPC across patient groups, palliative care services and regions nationwide. The standardized application of instruments should allow for making valid statements and comparisons of health care quality in SOPC based on process- and outcome-evaluation rather than relying on structural data only. Moreover, the instruments might directly influence the care of patients in palliative situations.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00012421 ).

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareCritical IllnessPalliative CarePsychometricsQuality of Health CareAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelDelivery of Health CareEvaluation Studies as TopicFemaleGermanyHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsEvaluationImplementationMixed methodsOutcome assessment [MeSH]Palliative care [MeSH]Quality of health care [MeSH]Study protocolValidation

Identifiers

PMID30285709
PMCPMC6169025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.