Quality criteria for paediatric oncology centres in Switzerland: A multistakeholder consensus finding process

Sarah P. Schladerer , Maria Otth , Katrin Scheinemann
{"title":"Quality criteria for paediatric oncology centres in Switzerland: A multistakeholder consensus finding process","authors":"Sarah P. Schladerer ,&nbsp;Maria Otth ,&nbsp;Katrin Scheinemann","doi":"10.1016/j.ymecc.2024.100011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Quality criteria aim to standardise and optimise the care provided to patients. Quality criteria for paediatric oncology centres exist in several countries but are missing for Switzerland. Therefore, we aimed to define quality criteria for paediatric oncology centres in Switzerland.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a three-round modified online Delphi process with 65 national stakeholders to reach a consensus on quality criteria retrieved from international sources. We asked stakeholders to decide on the relevance of categories of quality criteria (round 1), to rate (round 2) and re-rate (round 3) quality criteria regarding their relevance on a 5-point Likert scale, and to agree on a final list of quality criteria (round 3).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Twenty-nine stakeholders (response rate (RR) 45 %) participated in round 1, 23 (RR 35 %) in round 2, and 24 (RR 37 %) in round 3. In round 1, ≥ 50 % of stakeholders agreed that the six categories of facilities, multidisciplinary team and other experts, supportive care, treatment, long-term care, and volume and numbers are relevant in round 1. In round 2, ≥ 75 % of stakeholders rated 61 quality criteria as “relevant” or “very relevant”. In round 3, ≥ 75 % of stakeholders rated one additional quality criterion as “relevant” or “very relevant”, resulting in the agreement on a list of 62 relevant quality criteria.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Implementing these quality criteria can improve transparency, comparability, and, therefore, the quality of care in treatment centres. These quality criteria can be piloted nationally but need to be regularly reviewed. They may also serve as a reference for other countries.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100896,"journal":{"name":"Measurement and Evaluations in Cancer Care","volume":"3 ","pages":"Article 100011"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Measurement and Evaluations in Cancer Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949877524000066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Quality criteria aim to standardise and optimise the care provided to patients. Quality criteria for paediatric oncology centres exist in several countries but are missing for Switzerland. Therefore, we aimed to define quality criteria for paediatric oncology centres in Switzerland.

Methods

We conducted a three-round modified online Delphi process with 65 national stakeholders to reach a consensus on quality criteria retrieved from international sources. We asked stakeholders to decide on the relevance of categories of quality criteria (round 1), to rate (round 2) and re-rate (round 3) quality criteria regarding their relevance on a 5-point Likert scale, and to agree on a final list of quality criteria (round 3).

Results

Twenty-nine stakeholders (response rate (RR) 45 %) participated in round 1, 23 (RR 35 %) in round 2, and 24 (RR 37 %) in round 3. In round 1, ≥ 50 % of stakeholders agreed that the six categories of facilities, multidisciplinary team and other experts, supportive care, treatment, long-term care, and volume and numbers are relevant in round 1. In round 2, ≥ 75 % of stakeholders rated 61 quality criteria as “relevant” or “very relevant”. In round 3, ≥ 75 % of stakeholders rated one additional quality criterion as “relevant” or “very relevant”, resulting in the agreement on a list of 62 relevant quality criteria.

Conclusion

Implementing these quality criteria can improve transparency, comparability, and, therefore, the quality of care in treatment centres. These quality criteria can be piloted nationally but need to be regularly reviewed. They may also serve as a reference for other countries.
瑞士儿科肿瘤中心的质量标准:多方利益相关者共识发现过程
质量标准旨在标准化和优化提供给患者的护理。几个国家都有儿科肿瘤中心的质量标准,但瑞士没有。因此,我们旨在确定瑞士儿科肿瘤中心的质量标准。方法我们对65个国家的利益相关者进行了三轮改进的在线德尔菲过程,以就从国际资源中检索的质量标准达成共识。我们要求利益相关者决定质量标准类别的相关性(第1轮),在5点李克特量表上对质量标准的相关性进行评分(第2轮)和重新评分(第3轮),并就质量标准的最终清单达成一致(第3轮)。结果29名利益相关者(反应率(RR) 45 %)参加了第1轮,23名(RR 35 %)参加了第2轮,24名(RR 37 %)参加了第3轮。在第1轮中,≥ 50 %的利益相关者同意6类设施、多学科团队和其他专家、支持性护理、治疗、长期护理以及数量和数量在第1轮中是相关的。在第2轮中,≥ 75 %的利益相关者将61个质量标准评为“相关”或“非常相关”。在第3轮中,≥ 75 %的利益相关者将一个额外的质量标准评为“相关”或“非常相关”,导致对62个相关质量标准的列表达成一致。结论实施这些质量标准可以提高透明度和可比性,从而提高治疗中心的护理质量。这些质量标准可以在全国试行,但需要定期审查。对其他国家也有借鉴意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信