TABLE 2.
Quality indicator | Meaningfulness
|
Importance
|
||
---|---|---|---|---|
Median | % Agreeing | Median | % Agreeing | |
QIs that demonstrated agreement and acceptability | ||||
1. RTx for uncontrolled bone pain for painful bone mets* | 9 | 95 | 9 | 90 |
2. Potent antiemetics for emetogenic chemotherapy† | 9 | 95 | 9 | 85 |
6. Frequency of ER visits‡ | 7 | 86 | 8 | 81 |
7. b) ICU d near the end of life‡,§ | 8 | 86 | 6.5 | 50 |
8. a) Enrollment in palliative care within 6 mo of death* | 7 | 70 | 7 | 70 |
b) Enrollment in palliative care within 3 d of death*,§ | 7 | 79 | 7 | 61 |
9. Multidisciplinary care† | 8 | 83 | 8 | 72 |
12. b) Time and location of care (monthly visits)‡ | 8 | 76 | 8 | 75 |
14. Access to care† | 8.5 | 95 | 8.5 | 94 |
15. Access to palliative care* | 9 | 95 | 8 | 89 |
16. Regular palliative care assessments¶ | 8 | 89 | 8 | 88 |
18. Advance care directives||,¶ | 8 | 58 | 8 | 72 |
19. Assessment of financial and caregiving resources¶ | 8 | 75 | 8 | 84 |
QIs that demonstrated disagreement** | ||||
3. Interval between last chemotherapy and death‡ | 5.5 | 40 | 5 | 25 |
4. Interval between new chemotherapy and death* | 5.5 | 35 | 5 | 35 |
5. Site of death‡ | 3 | 60 | 4 | 35 |
7. a) Hospital d near end of life‡ | 6 | 40 | 6 | 37 |
10. Adverse events‡ | 7 | 58 | 7 | 56 |
11. Continuity of care‡ | 6.5 | 50 | 7 | 58 |
12. a) Time and location of care in last 2 wk of total visits‡ | 6.5 | 50 | 6.5 | 50 |
13. Community-centered services¶ | 7 | 65 | 8 | 68 |
17. Physician reimbursement for home visits¶ | 4 | 24 | 8 | 68 |
QI indicates quality indicator; mets, metastasis; ER, emergency room; ICU, intensive care unit.
On subsequent research, QI was partially measurable in Nova Scotia but was unmeasurable in Ontario. For full details on measurability findings, see Grunfeld 2006.13
On subsequent research, QI was partially measurable in both provinces (see Grunfeld 200613).
On subsequent research, QI was fully measurable in both provinces (see Grunfeld 200613).
QIs demonstrated agreement on meaningfulness only.
QI demonstrated agreement on importance only.
On subsequent research, QI was unmeasurable in both provinces (Grunfeld 200613).
According to RAND agreement criteria, disagreement indicates uncertainty on the acceptability of the QI.