Priority quality indicators for palliative care services in Portugal

• Autor(a) principal: Capelas, Manuel Luís
• Data de Publicação: 2018
• Outros Autores: Simões, Ana Sofia Antunes Wangricken Fonseca, Teves, Carla Filomena Tavares Marinho, Durão, Sofia Amado Pinto, Coelho, Sílvia Patrícia Fernandes, da Silva, Sanda Catarina Fonseca Simões, Silva, Alexandre Ernesto, Afonso, Tânia dos Santos
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.34632/cadernosdesaude.2018.7245

Introduction: The determination of basic and priority quality indicators for Palliative Care services in Portugal was understood as an important field of study. Quality emerges in the health landscape due to the intrinsic relationship with the response to the needs of patients and families; It is quality health care that ensures the best health coverage and, at the same time, encompasses the strategies needed to better respond to patients, families and society. In view of the above, quality indicators are understood as essential instruments in public health policies.  Aim: To develop 25 basic and priority quality indicators for Palliative Care services in Portugal. Materials and Methods: Analytical study completed in 2017, using the Delphi Method applied in 3-step consensus determination. An expert health panel with health professionals working in Palliative Care services for at least 3 years has been set for the study. Results: Indicators were first selected for consensus building; 44 quality indicators were obtained with a selection variance between 64.9% and 18.4% of the experts comprising the different typologies and domains: 12 structure, 28 process and 4 result indicators. In the developing of the selection process by consensus there was very high consensus for 17 indicators (2 structure, 14 process and 1 outcome), high consensus for 21 indicators (7 structure, 12 process and 2 outcome), moderate consensus on 5 indicators (3 structure and 2 process) and low consensus on 1 (outcome) indicator. Conclusion: The study identified 25 high or very high consensus quality indicators, fulfilling its objective. The final list of priority indicators includes all indicators with very high consensus, and high consensus indicators were ranked by proportion of agreement, that is, the proportion of experts who agree or very agree on the indicator's priority factor. Considering all the domains under study, they are globally represented in the final sample, except for the domain of spiritual, religious and existential aspects of care. In this way, a set of 25 indicators were defined: 4 structure indicators, 20 process indicators and 1 outcome indicator. The set of indicators allows an objective and systematized analysis of care, contributing to the best culture evaluation, from which better care response, effectiveness and efficiency will be achieved.