RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 P84 Quality monitoring in a hospice
JF BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care
JO BMJ Support Palliat Care
FD British Medical Journal Publishing Group
SP A39
OP A40
DO 10.1136/bmjspcare-2013-000591.106
VO 3
IS Suppl 1
A1 Pauline Flanagan
A1 Michelle Roberts
YR 2013
UL http://spcare.bmj.com/content/3/Suppl_1/A39.2.abstract
AB Background/context Hospices are expected to quantify the quality of care and demonstrate outcome improvements1,2. There has been a change in emphasis from system and process to outcome1-4. However, little hospice-specific guidance is available1-6. The DMH produces quarterly quality monitoring (QM) reports and is seeing useful intelligence. AimTo produce hospice-specific intelligenceTo evidence that the hospice remains low risk. Approach used QM is part of the hospice’s well-established clinical governance function. Reports use monthly (& rolling annual) data with published statistics (Office of National Statistics; National End of Life Care Intelligence Network). Electronic patient-notes enable data collation in a way that was impossible with paper notes. Hospice-specific outcome indicators have been developed to evidence compliance with outcome measures given in the NICE 2011 quality statements2 and the essential standards of quality and safety4. Outcomes The hospice has robust evidence of the following: Number (%) and diagnosis of patients receiving carePrimary care aimEquity of accessImpact of the 24/7 advice linePercentage of hospice deaths of patients offered an ACPpatients achieving their preferred place of care.Percentage of in-patients on the LCP at the time of their death.assessed for risks associated with moving and handling.experiencing minor/serious injury.assessed for tissue viability within 6 hours of admission.Waterlow score - an indication of patient frailty. The DMH can demonstrate that twice as many EOL patients receiving care die at home as those not referred to the hospice.