Evaluating the care provision of a community-based serious-illness care program via chart measures

Abstract

Background Although quality-of-care domains for home-based primary and palliative programs have been proposed, they have had limited testing in practice. Our aim was to evaluate the care provision in a community-based serious-illness care program, a combined home-based primary and palliative care model. Methods Retrospective chart review of patients in an academic community-based serious-illness care program in central North Carolina from August 2014 to March 2016 (n = 159). Chart review included demographics, health status, and operationalized measures of seven quality-of-care domains: medical assessment, care coordination, safety, quality of life, provider competency, goal attainment, and access. Results Patients were mostly women (56%) with an average age of 70 years. Patients were multi-morbid (53% ≥3 comorbidities), functionally impaired (45% had impairment in ≥2 activities of daily living) and 32% had dementia. During the study period, 31% of patients died. Chart review found high rates assessment of functional status (97%), falls (98%), and medication safety (96%). Rates of pain assessment (70%), advance directive discussions (65%), influenza vaccination (59%), and depression assessment (54% of those with a diagnosis of depression) were lower. Cognitive barriers, spiritual needs, and behavioral issues were assessed infrequently (35, 22, 21%, respectively). Conclusion This study is one of the first to operationalize and examine quality-of-care measures for a community-based serious-illness care program, an emerging model for vulnerable adults. Our operationalization should not constitute validation of these measures and revealed areas for improvement; however, the community-based serious-illness care program performed well in several key quality-of-care domains. Future work is needed to validate these measures.

Quality Indicators for High-Need Patients: a Systematic Review

“…(continued on next page) 10,18,24,28,33,34,36,40,54,58,61,62 Varies by study but includes low risk of bias studies 10,36,54 Varies by study, but includes low risk of bias studies 18,24,28,33,34,40,58,62 Varies by study; two 28,33…”

“…Cognitive status assessment 10 studies 10,14,34,36,39,40,54,58,60,61 Varies by study but includes low risk of bias studies 10,36,54 Varies by study, but includes low risk of bias studies 14,34,39,40,58,60 Varies by study; one 58 10,15,17,20,36,40,43,54,58 Varies by study but includes low risk of bias studies 10,36,54 Varies by study, but includes low risk of bias studies 20,40,43,58 Low Osteoporosis treatment offered 7 studies 10,20,28,40,54,61,62 Varies by study but includes low risk of bias studies 10,54 Varies by study, but includes low risk of bias studies 20,28,40,62 Varies by study; two…”

“…Constipation documentation, assessment, prevention 5 studies 10,34,36,54,61 Varies by study but includes low risk of bias study 10,36,54 Varies by study, but includes low risk of bias study 34 Varies by study; one 36 used sources to validate (e.g., ACOVE); one 34 reports on criterion met (discriminant power)…”