Benchmarking clinical indicators of quality for Australian residential aged care facilities

To undertake exploratory benchmarking of a set of clinical indicators of quality care in residential care in Australia, data were collected from 107 residents within four medium-sized facilities (40–80 beds) in Brisbane, Australia. The proportion of residents in each sample facility with a particular clinical problem was compared with US Minimum Data Set quality indicator thresholds. Results demonstrated variability within and between clinical indicators, suggesting breadth of assessment using various clinical indicators of quality is an important factor when monitoring quality of care. More comprehensive and objective measures of quality of care would be of great assistance in determining and monitoring the effectiveness of residential aged care provision in Australia, particularly as demands for accountability by consumers and their families increase. What is known about the topic? The key to quality improvement is effective quality assessment, and one means of evaluating quality of care is through clinical outcomes. The Minimum Data Set quality indicators have been credited with improving quality in United States nursing homes. What does this paper add? The Clinical Care Indicators Tool was used to collect data on clinical outcomes, enabling comparison of data from a small Australian sample with American quality benchmarks to illustrate the utility of providing guidelines for interpretation. What are the implications for practitioners? Collecting and comparing clinical outcome data would enable practitioners to better understand the quality of care being provided and whether practices required review. The Clinical Care Indicator Tool could provide a comprehensive and systematic means of doing this, thus filling a gap in quality monitoring within Australian residential aged care.

Clinical indicators of quality for Australian residential aged care facilities : establishing reliability, validity, and quality thresholds

Background: In response to the need for more comprehensive quality assessment within Australian residential aged care facilities, the Clinical Care Indicator (CCI) Tool was developed to collect outcome data as a means of making inferences about quality. A national trial of its effectiveness and a Brisbane-based trial of its use within the quality improvement context determined the CCI Tool represented a potentially valuable addition to the Australian aged care system. This document describes the next phase in the CCI Tool.s development; the aims of which were to establish validity and reliability of the CCI Tool, and to develop quality indicator thresholds (benchmarks) for use in Australia. The CCI Tool is now known as the ResCareQA (Residential Care Quality Assessment). Methods: The study aims were achieved through a combination of quantitative data analysis, and expert panel consultations using modified Delphi process. The expert panel consisted of experienced aged care clinicians, managers, and academics; they were initially consulted to determine face and content validity of the ResCareQA, and later to develop thresholds of quality. To analyse its psychometric properties, ResCareQA forms were completed for all residents (N=498) of nine aged care facilities throughout Queensland. Kappa statistics were used to assess inter-rater and test-retest reliability, and Cronbach.s alpha coefficient calculated to determine internal consistency. For concurrent validity, equivalent items on the ResCareQA and the Resident Classification Scales (RCS) were compared using Spearman.s rank order correlations, while discriminative validity was assessed using known-groups technique, comparing ResCareQA results between groups with differing care needs, as well as between male and female residents. Rank-ordered facility results for each clinical care indicator (CCI) were circulated to the panel; upper and lower thresholds for each CCI were nominated by panel members and refined through a Delphi process. These thresholds indicate excellent care at one extreme and questionable care at the other. Results: Minor modifications were made to the assessment, and it was renamed the ResCareQA. Agreement on its content was reached after two Delphi rounds; the final version contains 24 questions across four domains, enabling generation of 36 CCIs. Both test-retest and inter-rater reliability were sound with median kappa values of 0.74 (test-retest) and 0.91 (inter-rater); internal consistency was not as strong, with a Chronbach.s alpha of 0.46. Because the ResCareQA does not provide a single combined score, comparisons for concurrent validity were made with the RCS on an item by item basis, with most resultant correlations being quite low. Discriminative validity analyses, however, revealed highly significant differences in total number of CCIs between high care and low care groups (t199=10.77, p=0.000), while the differences between male and female residents were not significant (t414=0.56, p=0.58). Clinical outcomes varied both within and between facilities; agreed upper and lower thresholds were finalised after three Delphi rounds. Conclusions: The ResCareQA provides a comprehensive, easily administered means of monitoring quality in residential aged care facilities that can be reliably used on multiple occasions. The relatively modest internal consistency score was likely due to the multi-factorial nature of quality, and the absence of an aggregate result for the assessment. Measurement of concurrent validity proved difficult in the absence of a gold standard, but the sound discriminative validity results suggest that the ResCareQA has acceptable validity and could be confidently used as an indication of care quality within Australian residential aged care facilities. The thresholds, while preliminary due to small sample size, enable users to make judgements about quality within and between facilities. Thus it is recommended the ResCareQA be adopted for wider use.

Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines

Background Not all cancer patients receive state-of-the-art care and providing regular feedback to clinicians might reduce this problem. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of various data sources in providing feedback on the quality of cancer care. Methods Published clinical practice guidelines were used to obtain a list of processes-of-care of interest to clinicians. These were assigned to one of four data categories according to their availability and the marginal cost of using them for feedback. Results Only 8 (3%) of 243 processes-of-care could be measured using population-based registry or administrative inpatient data (lowest cost). A further 119 (49%) could be measured using a core clinical registry, which contains information on important prognostic factors (e.g., clinical stage, physiological reserve, hormone-receptor status). Another 88 (36%) required an expanded clinical registry or medical record review; mainly because they concerned long-term management of disease progression (recurrences and metastases) and 28 (11.5%) required patient interview or audio-taping of consultations because they involved information sharing between clinician and patient. Conclusion The advantages of population-based cancer registries and administrative inpatient data are wide coverage and low cost. The disadvantage is that they currently contain information on only a few processes-of-care. In most jurisdictions, clinical cancer registries, which can be used to report on many more processes-of-care, do not cover smaller hospitals. If we are to provide feedback about all patients, not just those in larger academic hospitals with the most developed data systems, then we need to develop sustainable population-based data systems that capture information on prognostic factors at the time of initial diagnosis and information on management of disease progression.

Quality of work life among primary health care nurses in the Jazan region, Saudi Arabia : a crosssectional study

Background: Quality of work life (QWL) is defined as the extent to which employee is satisfied with personal and working needs through participating in the workplace while achieving the organisation’s goals. QWL has been found to influence the commitment and productivity of employees in healthcare organisations, as well as in other industries. However, reliable information on the QWL of PHC nurses is limited. The purpose of this study was to assess the QWL among PHC nurses in the Jazan region, Saudi Arabia. Methods: A descriptive research design, namely, a cross-sectional survey was used in this study. Data were collected using Brooks’ survey of quality of nursing work life (QNWL) and demographic questions. A convenience sample was recruited from 143 PHC centres in Jazan, Saudi Arabia. The Jazan region is located in the southern part of Saudi Arabia. A response rate of 91% (N = 532/585) was achieved (effective RR = 87%, n = 508). Data analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, t-test and one way-analysis of variance. Total scores and sub-scores for QWL Items and item summary statistics were computed and reported, using SPSS version 17 for Windows. Results: Findings suggested that the respondents were dissatisfied with their work life. The major influencing factors were unsuitable working hours/shifts, lack of facilities for nurses, inability to balance work with family needs, inadequacy of family-leave time, poor staffing, management and supervision practices, lack of professional development opportunities, and inappropriate working environment in terms of the level of security, patient care supplies and equipment, and recreation facilities (Break-area). Other essential factors include the community’s view of nursing and inadequate salary. More positively, the majority of nurses were satisfied with their co-workers, satisfied to be nurses and had a sense of belonging in their workplaces. Significant differences were found according to gender, age, marital status, dependent children, dependent adults, nationality, ethnicity, nursing tenure, organisational tenure, positional tenure, and payment per month. No significant differences were found according to education level and location of PHC. Conclusions: These findings can be used by PHC managers and policy makers for developing and appropriately implementing successful plans to improve the QWL. This will help to enhance the home and work environments, improve individual and organisation performance and increase nurses’ commitment.

The relationship between quality of work life and turnover intention of primary health care nurses in Saudi Arabia

Background Quality of work life (QWL) has been found to influence the commitment of health professionals including nurses. However, reliable information on the QWL and turnover intention of primary health care (PHC) nurses is limited. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between QWL and turnover intention of PHC nurses in Saudi Arabia. Methods A cross-sectional survey was used in this study. Data were collected using Brooks’ survey of Quality of Nursing Work life (QNWL), the Anticipated Turnover Scale and demographic data questions. A total of 508 PHC nurses in the Jazan region, Saudi Arabia completed the questionnaire (RR = 87%). Descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, General Linear Model (GLM) univariate analysis, standard multiple regression (SMR), and hierarchical multiple regression (HMR) were applied for analysis using SPSS v17 for Windows. Results Findings suggested that the respondents were dissatisfied with their work life, with almost 40% indicating a turnover intention from their current PHC centres. Turnover intention was significantly related to QWL. Using SMR, 26% of the variance in turnover intention was explained by the QWL, p < 0.001, with R² = .263. Further analysis using HMR found that the total variance explained by the model as a whole (demographics and QWL) was 32.1%, p < 0.001. QWL explained an additional 19% of the variance in turnover intention, after controlling for demographic variables. Conclusions Creating and maintaining a healthy work life for PHC nurses is very important to improve their work satisfaction, reduce turnover, enhance productivity and improve nursing care outcomes.

Quality of life for older people in residential care is related to connectedness, willingness to enter care, and co-residents

Aim: To establish associations with quality of life (QOL) of older people in long-term residential care facilities in two New Zealand cities. Methods: The outcome measure of QOL was the Life Satisfaction Index. We used multiple linear regression to explore how broad categories of factors might contribute to QOL. Results: A total of 599 people (median age of 85 years; 74% women) participated. Response rates were 85% for facilities and 83% for residents. A resident's QOL was significantly related to the QOL of co-residents. QOL was higher for people who were more positive about entry to residential care, more physically able, and not depressed, and for those with more family and emotional support. Conclusion: Attending to the circumstances around entry to residential care may enhance QOL, as may promoting physical activity, treating depression and ensuring older people remain emotionally connected to their families. In choosing a facility, noting the QOL of co-residents is important.

Does a functional activity programme improve function, quality of life, and falls for residents in long term care? Cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective To assess the effectiveness of an activity programme in improving function, quality of life, and falls in older people in residential care. Design Cluster randomised controlled trial with one year follow-up. Setting 41low level dependency residential carehomes in New Zealand. Participants 682 people aged 65 years or over. Interventions 330 residents were offered a goal setting and individualised activities of daily living activity programme by a gerontology nurse, reinforced by usual healthcare assistants; 352 residents received social visits. Main outcome measures Function (late life function and disability instruments, elderly mobility scale, FICSIT-4

Key facilitators and barriers to quality of life in residential aged care : the role of design

Australia is undergoing a critical demographic transition: the population is ageing. By 2050, one in four Australians will be older than 65 years and by 2031, the number of older Australians requiring residential aged care will increase 63%, to 1.4 million (ABS, 2005). In anticipation of this global demographic transition, the World Health Organisation has advocated ‘active ageing’, identifying health, participation and security as the three key factors that enhance quality of life for people as they age (WHO, 2002). While there is considerable discussion and acceptance of active ageing principles, little is known about the experience of ‘active ageing’ for older Australians who live in Residential Aged Care Facilities (RACF). This research addresses this knowledge gap by exploring the key facilitators and barriers to quality of life and active ageing in aged care from the perspective of aged care residents (n=12). To do this, the project documented the initial expectations and daily life experience of new residents living in a RACF over a one-year period. Combined with in-depth interviews and surveys, the project utilised Photovoice methodology - where participants used photography to record their lived experiences. The initial findings suggest satisfaction with living in aged care centers around five key themes; resident’s mental attitude to living in aged care, forming positive peer and staff relationships, self-determination and maintaining independence, opportunities to participate in interesting activities, and living in a safe and comfortable physical environment. This paper reports on the last of these five key themes, focusing on the role of design in facilitating quality of life, specifically: “living within these walls” – safety, comfort and the physical environment.

Emergency department models of care in the context of care quality and cost: A systematic review

To identify current ED models of care and their impact on care quality, care effectiveness, and cost. A systematic search of key health databases (Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMbase) was conducted to identify literature on ED models of care. Additionally, a focused review of the contents of 11 international and national emergency medicine, nursing and health economic journals (published between 2010 and 2013) was undertaken with snowball identification of references of the most recent and relevant papers. Articles published between 1998 and 2013 in the English language were included for initial review by three of the authors. Studies in underdeveloped countries and not addressing the objectives of the present study were excluded. Relevant details were extracted from the retrieved literature, and analysed for relevance and impact. The literature was synthesised around the study's main themes. Models described within the literature mainly focused on addressing issues at the input, throughput or output stages of ED care delivery. Models often varied to account for site specific characteristics (e.g. onsite inpatient units) or to suit staffing profiles (e.g. extended scope physiotherapist), ED geographical location (e.g. metropolitan or rural site), and patient demographic profile (e.g. paediatrics, older persons, ethnicity). Only a few studies conducted cost-effectiveness analysis of service models. Although various models of delivering emergency healthcare exist, further research is required in order to make accurate and reliable assessments of their safety, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Multiple perspectives on quality of life for residents with dementia in long term care facilities: Protocol for a comprehensive Australian study

Background Dementia is a chronic illness without cure or effective treatment, which results in declining mental and physical function and assistance from others to manage activities of daily living. Many people with dementia live in long term care facilities, yet research into their quality of life (QoL) was rare until the last decade. Previous studies failed to incorporate important variables related to the facility and care provision or to look closely at the daily lives of residents. This paper presents a protocol for a comprehensive, multi-perspective assessment of QoL of residents with dementia living in long term care in Australia. A secondary aim is investigating the effectiveness of self-report instruments for measuring QoL. Methods The study utilizes a descriptive, mixed methods design to examine how facility, care staff, and resident factors impact QoL. Over 500 residents with dementia from a stratified, random sample of 53 facilities are being recruited. A sub-sample of 12 residents is also taking part in qualitative interviews and observations. Conclusions This national study will provide a broad understanding of factors underlying QoL for residents with dementia in long term care. The present study uses a similar methodology to the US-based Collaborative Studies of Long Term Care (CS-LTC) Dementia Care Study, applying it to the Australian setting.

Influencers on quality of life as reported by people living with dementia in long-term care: A descriptive exploratory approach

Background Over half of the residents in long-term care have a diagnosis of dementia. Maintaining quality of life is important, as there is no cure for dementia. Quality of life may be used as a benchmark for caregiving, and can help to enhance respect for the person with dementia and to improve care provision. The purpose of this study was to describe quality of life as reported by people living with dementia in long-term care in terms of the influencers of, as well as the strategies needed, to improve quality of life. Methods A descriptive exploratory approach. A subsample of twelve residents across two Australian states from a national quantitative study on quality of life was interviewed. Data were analysed thematically from a realist perspective. The approach to the thematic analysis was inductive and data-driven. Results Three themes emerged in relation to influencers and strategies related to quality of life: (a) maintaining independence; (b) having something to do, and; (c) the importance of social interaction. Conclusions The findings highlight the importance of understanding individual resident needs and consideration of the complexity of living in large group living situations, in particular in regard to resident decision-making.

What are the barriers of quality survivorship care for haematology cancer patients? Qualitative insights from cancer nurses

Purpose: Many haematological cancer survivors report long-term physiological and psychosocial effects beyond treatment completion. These survivors continue to experience impaired quality of life (QoL) as a result of their disease and aggressive treatment. As key members of the multidisciplinary team, the purpose of this study is to examine the insights of cancer nurses to inform future developments in survivorship care provision. Methods: Open text qualitative responses from two prospective Australian cross-sectional surveys of nurses (n=136) caring for patients with haematological cancer. Data were analysed thematically, using an inductive approach to identify themes. Results: This study has identified a number of issues that nurses perceive as barriers to quality survivorship care provision. Two main themes were identified; the first relating to the challenges nurses face in providing care (‘care challenges’), and the second relating to the challenges of providing survivorship care within contemporary health care systems (‘system challenges’). Conclusions: Cancer nurses perceive the nature of haematological cancer and its treatment, and of the health care system itself, as barriers to the provision of quality survivorship care. Care challenges such as the lack of a standard treatment path and the relapsing or remitting nature of haematological cancers may be somewhat intractable, but system challenges relating to clearly defining and delineating professional responsibilities and exchanging information with other clinicians are not. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Addressing the issues identified will facilitate cancer nurses’ provision of survivorship care, and help address haematological survivors’ needs with regard to the physical and psychosocial consequences of their cancer and treatment.

Routine Measurement of Health-Related Quality of Life in Assessing Cost-Effectiveness in Secondary Health Care

Aims: The aims of this study were 1) to identify and describe health economic studies that have used quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) based on actual measurements of patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL); 2) to test the feasibility of routine collection of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data as an indicator of effectiveness of secondary health care; and 3) to establish and compare the cost-utility of three large-volume surgical procedures in a real-world setting in the Helsinki University Central Hospital, a large referral hospital providing secondary and tertiary health-care services for a population of approximately 1.4 million. Patients and methods: So as to identify studies that have used QALYs as an outcome measure, a systematic search of the literature was performed using the Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SCI and Cochrane Library electronic databases. Initial screening of the identified articles involved two reviewers independently reading the abstracts; the full-text articles were also evaluated independently by two reviewers, with a third reviewer used in cases where the two reviewers could not agree a consensus on which articles should be included. The feasibility of routinely evaluating the cost-effectiveness of secondary health care was tested by setting up a system for collecting HRQoL data on approximately 4 900 patients' HRQoL before and after operative treatments performed in the hospital. The HRQoL data used as an indicator of treatment effectiveness was combined with diagnostic and financial indicators routinely collected in the hospital. To compare the cost-effectiveness of three surgical interventions, 712 patients admitted for routine operative treatment completed the 15D HRQoL questionnaire before and also 3-12 months after the operation. QALYs were calculated using the obtained utility data and expected remaining life years of the patients. Direct hospital costs were obtained from the clinical patient administration database of the hospital and a cost-utility analysis was performed from the perspective of the provider of secondary health care services. Main results: The systematic review (Study I) showed that although QALYs gained are considered an important measure of the effectiveness of health care, the number of studies in which QALYs are based on actual measurements of patients' HRQoL is still fairly limited. Of the reviewed full-text articles, only 70 reported QALYs based on actual before after measurements using a valid HRQoL instrument. Collection of simple cost-effectiveness data in secondary health care is feasible and could easily be expanded and performed on a routine basis (Study II). It allows meaningful comparisons between various treatments and provides a means for allocating limited health care resources. The cost per QALY gained was 2 770 for cervical operations and 1 740 for lumbar operations. In cases where surgery was delayed the cost per QALY was doubled (Study III). The cost per QALY ranges between subgroups in cataract surgery (Study IV). The cost per QALY gained was 5 130 for patients having both eyes operated on and 8 210 for patients with only one eye operated on during the 6-month follow-up. In patients whose first eye had been operated on previous to the study period, the mean HRQoL deteriorated after surgery, thus precluding the establishment of the cost per QALY. In arthroplasty patients (Study V) the mean cost per QALY gained in a one-year period was 6 710 for primary hip replacement, 52 270 for revision hip replacement, and 14 000 for primary knee replacement. Conclusions: Although the importance of cost-utility analyses has during recent years been stressed, there are only a limited number of studies in which the evaluation is based on patients own assessment of the treatment effectiveness. Most of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses are based on modeling that employs expert opinion regarding the outcome of treatment, not on patient-derived assessments. Routine collection of effectiveness information from patients entering treatment in secondary health care turned out to be easy enough and did not, for instance, require additional personnel on the wards in which the study was executed. The mean patient response rate was more than 70 %, suggesting that patients were happy to participate and appreciated the fact that the hospital showed an interest in their well-being even after the actual treatment episode had ended. Spinal surgery leads to a statistically significant and clinically important improvement in HRQoL. The cost per QALY gained was reasonable, at less than half of that observed for instance for hip replacement surgery. However, prolonged waiting for an operation approximately doubled the cost per QALY gained from the surgical intervention. The mean utility gain following routine cataract surgery in a real world setting was relatively small and confined mostly to patients who had had both eyes operated on. The cost of cataract surgery per QALY gained was higher than previously reported and was associated with considerable degree of uncertainty. Hip and knee replacement both improve HRQoL. The cost per QALY gained from knee replacement is two-fold compared to hip replacement. Cost-utility results from the three studied specialties showed that there is great variation in the cost-utility of surgical interventions performed in a real-world setting even when only common, widely accepted interventions are considered. However, the cost per QALY of all the studied interventions, except for revision hip arthroplasty, was well below 50 000, this figure being sometimes cited in the literature as a threshold level for the cost-effectiveness of an intervention. Based on the present study it may be concluded that routine evaluation of the cost-utility of secondary health care is feasible and produces information essential for a rational and balanced allocation of scarce health care resources.