View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Feasibility and acceptability of the brief patient-reported experience measure consideRATE within the hospital setting for patients with palliative care needs, their families/carers and clinicians.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Feasibility and acceptability of the brief patient-reported experience measure consideRATE within the hospital setting for patients with palliative care needs, their families/carers and clinicians.
Authors: Virdun, Claudia, Button, Elise, Phillips, Jane L, Saunders, Catherine H, Yates, Patsy, Luckett, Tim
Source: Palliative Medicine. Jan2025, Vol. 39 Issue 1, p151-162. 12p.
Subjects: Palliative treatment, Medical quality control, Focus groups, Research funding, Families, Hospitals, Tertiary care, Descriptive statistics, Caregivers, Longitudinal method, Thematic analysis, Needs assessment, Physicians, Health outcome assessment, Quality assurance, Medical screening, Data analysis software, Health care teams
Geographic Terms: Australia
Abstract: Background: Supporting clinical teams to improve care for inpatients with palliative care needs and their carers is a known priority. Patient reported experience measures (PREMs) may assist in improvement work. Evidence about how to collect and feedback PREM data for this population and context is required. Aim: To determine the feasibility of implementing a brief, validated PREM, consideRATE and appraise its acceptability as perceived by inpatients with palliative care needs, their carers and clinicians. Design: A prospective study using: 1) PREM administration, screening log and field note completion; and; 2) a focus group with clinicians. Setting/participants: Eligible participants recruited from three wards (cancer care and internal medicine) of an Australian tertiary metropolitan hospital. Participants included patients screened to have palliative care needs (using the SPICTTM criteria), their carers and multidisciplinary clinicians (including clinical managers). Results: Feasibility : A 71% response rate was achieved (n = 80 from 112 eligible patients approached). Mean screening time to inform eligible patients for PREM completion was 7.5 min. More than half of eligible participants (n = 47, 59%) opted for electronic completion of consideRATE and mean completion time was 6.12 min. A third of participants required assistance for PREM completion (n = 27, 34%). Score distribution varied across response options, albeit with a positive skew towards 'very good' and 'good'. Two thirds of respondents (n = 50, 62.5%) provided ⩾1 free-text response. Acceptability : Clinicians valued consideRATE data noting feedback needed to be: accessible, supported by free-text and responsive to local contexts. Conclusions: It is feasible to implement consideRATE for inpatients with palliative care needs. Clinicians note consideRATE data is acceptable in informing improvement foci. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Palliative Medicine is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 181917963
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Feasibility and acceptability of the brief patient-reported experience measure consideRATE within the hospital setting for patients with palliative care needs, their families/carers and clinicians.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Virdun%2C+Claudia%22">Virdun, Claudia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Button%2C+Elise%22">Button, Elise</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Phillips%2C+Jane+L%22">Phillips, Jane L</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Saunders%2C+Catherine+H%22">Saunders, Catherine H</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yates%2C+Patsy%22">Yates, Patsy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Luckett%2C+Tim%22">Luckett, Tim</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Palliative+Medicine%22">Palliative Medicine</searchLink>. Jan2025, Vol. 39 Issue 1, p151-162. 12p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Palliative+treatment%22">Palliative treatment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+quality+control%22">Medical quality control</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Focus+groups%22">Focus groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+funding%22">Research funding</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Families%22">Families</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hospitals%22">Hospitals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tertiary+care%22">Tertiary care</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Descriptive+statistics%22">Descriptive statistics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Caregivers%22">Caregivers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Longitudinal+method%22">Longitudinal method</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Thematic+analysis%22">Thematic analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Needs+assessment%22">Needs assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physicians%22">Physicians</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Health+outcome+assessment%22">Health outcome assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Quality+assurance%22">Quality assurance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+screening%22">Medical screening</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Data+analysis+software%22">Data analysis software</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Health+care+teams%22">Health care teams</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectGeographic
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Supporting clinical teams to improve care for inpatients with palliative care needs and their carers is a known priority. Patient reported experience measures (PREMs) may assist in improvement work. Evidence about how to collect and feedback PREM data for this population and context is required. Aim: To determine the feasibility of implementing a brief, validated PREM, consideRATE and appraise its acceptability as perceived by inpatients with palliative care needs, their carers and clinicians. Design: A prospective study using: 1) PREM administration, screening log and field note completion; and; 2) a focus group with clinicians. Setting/participants: Eligible participants recruited from three wards (cancer care and internal medicine) of an Australian tertiary metropolitan hospital. Participants included patients screened to have palliative care needs (using the SPICTTM criteria), their carers and multidisciplinary clinicians (including clinical managers). Results: Feasibility : A 71% response rate was achieved (n = 80 from 112 eligible patients approached). Mean screening time to inform eligible patients for PREM completion was 7.5 min. More than half of eligible participants (n = 47, 59%) opted for electronic completion of consideRATE and mean completion time was 6.12 min. A third of participants required assistance for PREM completion (n = 27, 34%). Score distribution varied across response options, albeit with a positive skew towards 'very good' and 'good'. Two thirds of respondents (n = 50, 62.5%) provided ⩾1 free-text response. Acceptability : Clinicians valued consideRATE data noting feedback needed to be: accessible, supported by free-text and responsive to local contexts. Conclusions: It is feasible to implement consideRATE for inpatients with palliative care needs. Clinicians note consideRATE data is acceptable in informing improvement foci. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Palliative Medicine is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=181917963
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/02692163241291343
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 151
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Palliative treatment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical quality control
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Focus groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research funding
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Families
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hospitals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tertiary care
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Descriptive statistics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Caregivers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Longitudinal method
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Thematic analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Needs assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physicians
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Health outcome assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Quality assurance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical screening
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Data analysis software
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Health care teams
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Feasibility and acceptability of the brief patient-reported experience measure consideRATE within the hospital setting for patients with palliative care needs, their families/carers and clinicians.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Virdun, Claudia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Button, Elise
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Phillips, Jane L
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Saunders, Catherine H
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yates, Patsy
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Luckett, Tim
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Text: Jan2025
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 02692163
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 39
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Palliative Medicine
              Type: main
ResultId 1