Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016 Mar;51(3):497-503. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.12.313. Epub 2016 Feb 5.

Adherence to Measuring What Matters Measures Using Point-of-Care Data Collection Across Diverse Clinical Settings.

Author information

1
Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA. Electronic address: arif.kamal@duke.edu.
2
Four Seasons, Flat Rock, North Carolina, USA.
3
University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
4
University of Colorado at Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA.
5
Palliative Care Program, Division of Geriatric Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
6
Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

Abstract

CONTEXT:

Measuring What Matters (MWM) for palliative care has prioritized data collection efforts for evaluating quality in clinical practice. How these measures can be implemented across diverse clinical settings using point-of-care data collection on quality is unknown.

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate the implementation of MWM measures by exploring documentation of quality measure adherence across six diverse clinical settings inherent to palliative care practice.

METHODS:

We deployed a point-of-care quality data collection system, the Quality Data Collection Tool, across five organizations within the Palliative Care Research Cooperative Group. Quality measures were recorded by clinicians or assistants near care delivery.

RESULTS:

During the study period, 1989 first visits were included for analysis. Our population was mostly white, female, and with moderate performance status. About half of consultations were seen on hospital general floors. We observed a wide range of adherence. The lowest adherence involved comprehensive assessments during the first visit in hospitalized patients in the intensive care unit (2.71%); the highest adherence across all settings, with an implementation of >95%, involved documentation of management of moderate/severe pain. We observed differences in adherence across clinical settings especially with MWM Measure #2 (Screening for Physical Symptoms, range 45.7%-81.8%); MWM Measure #5 (Discussion of Emotional Needs, range 46.1%-96.1%); and MWM Measure #6 (Documentation of Spiritual/Religious Concerns, range 0-69.6%).

CONCLUSION:

Variations in clinician documentation of adherence to MWM quality measures are seen across clinical settings. Additional studies are needed to better understand benchmarks and acceptable ranges for adherence tailored to various clinical settings.

KEYWORDS:

Measuring What Matters; Quality; alliance; collaboratives; implementation; quality measures

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center