The Library

A national facilitation project to improve primary palliative care : impact of the Gold Standards Framework on process and self-ratings of quality

Tools

Dale, Jeremy, 1958-, Petrova, Mila, Munday, Dan, Koistinen-Harris, J., Lall, Ranjit and Thomas, K.. (2009) A national facilitation project to improve primary palliative care : impact of the Gold Standards Framework on process and self-ratings of quality. Quality and Safety in Health Care, Vol.18 (No.3). pp. 174-180. ISSN 1475-3898

Preview

PDF
WRAP_Dale_National_facilitation.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (208Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2007.024836

Abstract

Background: Improving quality of end-of-life care is a key driver of UK policy. The Gold Standards Framework (GSF) for Palliative Care aims to strengthen primary palliative care through facilitating implementation of systematic clinical and organisational processes. Objectives: To describe the general practices that participated in the GSF programme in 2003–5 and the changes in process and perception of quality that occurred in the year following entry into the programme, and to identify factors associated with the extent of change. Methods: Participating practices completed a questionnaire at baseline and another approximately 12 months later. Data were derived from categorical questions about the implementation of 35 organisational and clinical processes, and self-rated assessments of quality, associated with palliative care provision. Participants: 1305 practices (total registered population almost 10 million). Follow-up questionnaire completed by 955 (73.2%) practices (after mean (SD) 12.8 (2.8) months; median 13 months). Findings: Mean increase in total number of processes implemented (maximum = 35) was 9.6 (95% CI 9.0 to 10.2; p<0.001; baseline: 15.7 (SD 6.4), follow-up: 25.2 (SD 5.2)). Extent of change was largest for practices with low baseline scores. Aspects of process related to coordination and communication showed the greatest change. All dimensions of quality improved following GSF implementation; change was highest for the "quality of palliative care for cancer patients" and "confidence in assessing, recording and addressing the physical and psychosocial areas of patient care". Conclusion: Implementation of the GSF seems to have resulted in substantial improvements in process and quality of palliative care. Further research is required of the extent to which this has enhanced care (physical, practical and psychological outcomes) for patients and carers.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Great Britain) , Palliative treatment -- Great Britain, Medicine -- Research -- Great Britain, Primary care (Medicine), Terminal care -- Great Britain
Journal or Publication Title:	Quality and Safety in Health Care
Publisher:	BMJ Group
ISSN:	1475-3898
Date:	June 2009
Volume:	Vol.18
Number:	No.3
Page Range:	pp. 174-180
Identification Number:	10.1136/qshc.2007.024836
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
Funder:	Macmillan Cancer Support (Great Britain) (MCS)
References:	# Murray S, Boyd K, Sheikh A, et al.. Developing primary palliative care. BMJ 2004;329:1056–7.[Free Full Text] # Munday D, Dale J. Palliative care in the community. BMJ 2007;334:809–10. # Borgsteede S, Graafland-Riedstra C, Deliens L, et al.. Good end-of-life care according to patients and their GPs. Br J Gen Pract 2006;53:20–6. # Aabom B, Kragstrup J, Vondeling H, et al.. Population-based study of place of death of patients with cancer: implications for GPs. Br J Gen Pract 2005;55:684–9. # Kendall M, Boyd K, Campbell C, et al.. How do people with cancer wish to be cared for in primary care? Serial discussion groups of patients and carers. Fam Pract 2006;23:644–50. # Thomas K. Caring for the dying at home: companions on the journey . Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press, 2003. # Thomas K, Noble N. Improving the delivery of palliative care in general practice: an evaluation of the first phase of the Gold Standards Framework. Palliat Med 2007;21:49–53. # End of Life Care Programme. The Gold Standards Framework. 2006. http://www.goldstandardsframework.nhs.uk. # National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on cancer services: improving supportive and palliative care for adults . London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2004. # Department of Health. Our health, our care, our say: a new direction for community services . London: Department of Health, 2006. # King N, Thomas K, Martin N, et al.. "Now nobody falls through the net": practitioners’ perspectives on the Gold Standards Framework for community palliative care. Palliat Med 2005;19:619–27. # Munday D, Mahmood K, Dale J, et al.. Facilitating good process in primary palliative care: does the Gold Standards Framework enable quality performance? Fam Pract 2007;24:486–94. # Mant J, MacManus R, Hare R, et al.. Identification of stroke in the community: a comparison of three methods. Br J Gen Pract 2003;53:520–524. # Stone AA, Turkkan JS, Bachrach CA, et al.. The science of self reports: implications for research and practice . Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. # Silman A, Macfarlane G. Epidemiological studies: a practical guide . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. # Tourangeau RRemembering what happened: memory errors and survey reports.In:Stone AA, Turkkan JS, Bachrach CA, et al., eds. The science of self reports: implications for research and practice . Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. # Fink A. Conducting research literature reviews: from internet to paper . London: Sage, 2005. # Adams AS, Soumerai SB, Lomas J, et al.. Evidence of self-report bias in assessing adherence to guidelines. Int J Qual Health Care 1999;11:187–92. # Trelle S. Accuracy of responses from postal surveys about continuing medical education and information behaviour: experiences from a survey among German diabetologists. BMC Health Serv Res 2002;2:1–5. # Grande G, Todd C. Why are trials in palliative care so difficult? Palliat Med 2000;14:69–74. # Munday D, Dale J, Murray S. Choice and place of death: individual preferences, uncertainty, and the availability of care. J R Soc Med 2007;100:211–15. # Mahmood-Yousuf K, Munday D, King N, et al.. Interprofessional relationships and communication in primary palliative care: impact of the Gold Standards Framework. Br J Gen Pract 2008;58:256–63.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/802