Aspinal Fiona, Addington-Hall Julia, Hughes Rhidian, Higginson Irene J
Department of Palliative Care and Policy, Guy's, King's and St Thomas' School of Medicine, King's College London, Weston Education Centre, London, UK.
J Adv Nurs. 2003 May;42(4):324-39. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02624.x.
The advent of clinical governance in British health policy has placed increased demands on health care providers and practitioners to ascertain the quality of their services. Traditional indicators of quality of health care, such as death or recovery rates, are not appropriate in palliative care. Thus, it is important to establish alternative approaches to measuring the quality of palliative care services and interventions.
Satisfaction levels have been used widely in palliative care to assess quality. A literature review was conducted which aimed to explore the strengths and weaknesses of using satisfaction as an indicator of the quality of palliative care services. It also aimed to provide a solid basis upon which further work could be built.
Five electronic databases were searched using key words and phrases and key authors. Hand searches were conducted of four journals that contributed significantly to the concept of satisfaction, and reference lists of reviewed papers were scrutinized. Relevant papers were reviewed, data were extracted and these data were thematically analysed.
There are a number of important unresolved issues in the literature with regard to using satisfaction as an indicator of the quality of palliative care services. First, few alternatives to satisfaction are available. Secondly, satisfaction is under-theorized and no widely accepted definition exists. Thirdly, there are methodological inconsistencies across studies. It is important to take into account these findings when planning and implementing change following service evaluation using satisfaction as a measure.
Relying on findings of satisfaction surveys to determine clinical and policy amendments in palliative care may not result in improvements in overall quality of care. Using satisfaction as a method of assessing the quality of health care services is particularly problematic and requires further investigation in both practical and conceptual terms.
英国卫生政策中临床治理的出现,对医疗服务提供者和从业者确定其服务质量提出了更高要求。传统的医疗质量指标,如死亡率或康复率,在姑息治疗中并不适用。因此,建立衡量姑息治疗服务和干预措施质量的替代方法很重要。
满意度水平在姑息治疗中被广泛用于评估质量。进行了一项文献综述,旨在探讨将满意度作为姑息治疗服务质量指标的优缺点。它还旨在为进一步的工作提供坚实的基础。
使用关键词、短语和主要作者搜索了五个电子数据库。对四本对满意度概念有重大贡献的期刊进行了手工检索,并仔细审查了综述论文的参考文献列表。对相关论文进行了综述,提取了数据并对这些数据进行了主题分析。
在将满意度作为姑息治疗服务质量指标方面,文献中存在一些重要的未解决问题。首先,几乎没有满意度的替代指标。其次,满意度缺乏理论支持,不存在广泛接受的定义。第三,各项研究在方法上存在不一致。在使用满意度作为衡量标准进行服务评估后规划和实施变革时,考虑这些结果很重要。
依靠满意度调查结果来确定姑息治疗中的临床和政策调整可能不会提高整体护理质量。将满意度作为评估医疗服务质量的方法特别成问题,需要在实践和概念层面进行进一步调查。