Recording patient preferences for end-of-life care as an incentivized quality indicator: What do general practice staff think?

Kerin Hannon, Helen Lester, Stephen Campbell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Since April 2009, indicators for the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pilot have been developed and piloted across a nationally representative sample of practices. In October 2009 a single palliative care indicator was piloted for 6 months that looked at, 'the percentage of patients on the palliative care register who have a preferred place to receive end-of-life care documented in the records'.

Aim: The aim of this study was to gain the views and experiences of general practice staff on whether the inclusion of a single incentivized indicator to record the preferred place to receive end-of-life care would improve the quality of palliative care. Any issues arising from its implementation in a pay-for-performance scheme were also explored.

Methods: Interviews took place with 57 members of staff in 24 practices: 21 GPs, 16 practice managers, 12 nurses and eight others (mostly information technology experts).

Results: The indicator was not deemed appropriate for incentivization due to concerns about incentivizing an isolated, single issue within a multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary and complex topic. Palliative care was seen to be too sensitive and patient specific to be amenable to population-level quality measurement. In implementation, the indicator would pose potential harm to patients who may be asked about their end-of-life care at an inappropriate time and by a member of staff who may not be best placed to address this sensitive topic.

Conclusions: The most appropriate time to ask a patient about end-of-life care is subjective and patient specific and therefore does not lend itself to an inflexible single indicator. Focusing on one isolated question simplifies and distracts from a multi-faceted and complex issue and may lead to patient harm
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)336-341
Number of pages6
JournalPalliative Medicine
Volume26
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Terminal Care
Patient Preference
Palliative Care
General Practice
Patient Harm
Incentive Reimbursement
Quality of Health Care
Nurses
Interviews
Technology
Population

Cite this

@article{dedf7316bb2743b481c1b8b0dc0d4961,
title = "Recording patient preferences for end-of-life care as an incentivized quality indicator: What do general practice staff think?",
abstract = "Introduction: Since April 2009, indicators for the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pilot have been developed and piloted across a nationally representative sample of practices. In October 2009 a single palliative care indicator was piloted for 6 months that looked at, 'the percentage of patients on the palliative care register who have a preferred place to receive end-of-life care documented in the records'. Aim: The aim of this study was to gain the views and experiences of general practice staff on whether the inclusion of a single incentivized indicator to record the preferred place to receive end-of-life care would improve the quality of palliative care. Any issues arising from its implementation in a pay-for-performance scheme were also explored. Methods: Interviews took place with 57 members of staff in 24 practices: 21 GPs, 16 practice managers, 12 nurses and eight others (mostly information technology experts). Results: The indicator was not deemed appropriate for incentivization due to concerns about incentivizing an isolated, single issue within a multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary and complex topic. Palliative care was seen to be too sensitive and patient specific to be amenable to population-level quality measurement. In implementation, the indicator would pose potential harm to patients who may be asked about their end-of-life care at an inappropriate time and by a member of staff who may not be best placed to address this sensitive topic. Conclusions: The most appropriate time to ask a patient about end-of-life care is subjective and patient specific and therefore does not lend itself to an inflexible single indicator. Focusing on one isolated question simplifies and distracts from a multi-faceted and complex issue and may lead to patient harm",
author = "Kerin Hannon and Helen Lester and Stephen Campbell",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1177/0269216311406990",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "336--341",
journal = "Palliative Medicine",
issn = "0269-2163",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "4",

}

Recording patient preferences for end-of-life care as an incentivized quality indicator: What do general practice staff think? / Hannon, Kerin; Lester, Helen; Campbell, Stephen.

In: Palliative Medicine, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2012, p. 336-341.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Recording patient preferences for end-of-life care as an incentivized quality indicator: What do general practice staff think?

AU - Hannon, Kerin

AU - Lester, Helen

AU - Campbell, Stephen

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Introduction: Since April 2009, indicators for the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pilot have been developed and piloted across a nationally representative sample of practices. In October 2009 a single palliative care indicator was piloted for 6 months that looked at, 'the percentage of patients on the palliative care register who have a preferred place to receive end-of-life care documented in the records'. Aim: The aim of this study was to gain the views and experiences of general practice staff on whether the inclusion of a single incentivized indicator to record the preferred place to receive end-of-life care would improve the quality of palliative care. Any issues arising from its implementation in a pay-for-performance scheme were also explored. Methods: Interviews took place with 57 members of staff in 24 practices: 21 GPs, 16 practice managers, 12 nurses and eight others (mostly information technology experts). Results: The indicator was not deemed appropriate for incentivization due to concerns about incentivizing an isolated, single issue within a multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary and complex topic. Palliative care was seen to be too sensitive and patient specific to be amenable to population-level quality measurement. In implementation, the indicator would pose potential harm to patients who may be asked about their end-of-life care at an inappropriate time and by a member of staff who may not be best placed to address this sensitive topic. Conclusions: The most appropriate time to ask a patient about end-of-life care is subjective and patient specific and therefore does not lend itself to an inflexible single indicator. Focusing on one isolated question simplifies and distracts from a multi-faceted and complex issue and may lead to patient harm

AB - Introduction: Since April 2009, indicators for the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pilot have been developed and piloted across a nationally representative sample of practices. In October 2009 a single palliative care indicator was piloted for 6 months that looked at, 'the percentage of patients on the palliative care register who have a preferred place to receive end-of-life care documented in the records'. Aim: The aim of this study was to gain the views and experiences of general practice staff on whether the inclusion of a single incentivized indicator to record the preferred place to receive end-of-life care would improve the quality of palliative care. Any issues arising from its implementation in a pay-for-performance scheme were also explored. Methods: Interviews took place with 57 members of staff in 24 practices: 21 GPs, 16 practice managers, 12 nurses and eight others (mostly information technology experts). Results: The indicator was not deemed appropriate for incentivization due to concerns about incentivizing an isolated, single issue within a multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary and complex topic. Palliative care was seen to be too sensitive and patient specific to be amenable to population-level quality measurement. In implementation, the indicator would pose potential harm to patients who may be asked about their end-of-life care at an inappropriate time and by a member of staff who may not be best placed to address this sensitive topic. Conclusions: The most appropriate time to ask a patient about end-of-life care is subjective and patient specific and therefore does not lend itself to an inflexible single indicator. Focusing on one isolated question simplifies and distracts from a multi-faceted and complex issue and may lead to patient harm

U2 - 10.1177/0269216311406990

DO - 10.1177/0269216311406990

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 336

EP - 341

JO - Palliative Medicine

JF - Palliative Medicine

SN - 0269-2163

IS - 4

ER -