What gets measured in palliative care? A review and synthesis of routine data collection in 16 countries

IF 2.3 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Eimir Hurley , Peter May , Soraya Matthews , Charles Normand , Bridget M. Johnston
{"title":"What gets measured in palliative care? A review and synthesis of routine data collection in 16 countries","authors":"Eimir Hurley ,&nbsp;Peter May ,&nbsp;Soraya Matthews ,&nbsp;Charles Normand ,&nbsp;Bridget M. Johnston","doi":"10.1016/j.hpopen.2025.100141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>There is an increasing focus on strengthening palliative care data infrastructure to evaluate and improve the quality of care. We conducted an extensive review of policy documents to identify international best practice in the use of routine data in palliative care.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We identified 16 countries with well-established palliative care services before undertaking the review. We searched systematically for relevant documentation on each country in the academic, grey and governmental literature. For each country we then compiled a narrative synthesis utilising a standardised extraction template. Local experts verified country-level synopses. We combined the 16 country documents using thematic synthesis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There was significant heterogeneity in the data infrastructure of the countries examined. The majority of the databases and data sources focused on specialist palliative care services with a notable lack of data on palliative care delivered in primary and community care. Several countries have established bespoke palliative care databases; others harness existing data sources, and capitalise on the existence of unique patient identifiers. The gaps and limitations identified were commonly shared across all types of palliative and end of life care data infrastructure. Similarly, many of the factors deemed highly influential in implementing and sustaining existing databases are relevant across all data infrastructure.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This first-of-its-kind analysis details the characteristics of databases/data sources and highlights the significant heterogeneity which exists. The strengths and limitations of existing databases/data sources and the factors that influence how well these systems are sustained are examined, providing key learnings for those eager to improve the data infrastructure in their own jurisdictions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34527,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy Open","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100141"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590229625000061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

There is an increasing focus on strengthening palliative care data infrastructure to evaluate and improve the quality of care. We conducted an extensive review of policy documents to identify international best practice in the use of routine data in palliative care.

Methods

We identified 16 countries with well-established palliative care services before undertaking the review. We searched systematically for relevant documentation on each country in the academic, grey and governmental literature. For each country we then compiled a narrative synthesis utilising a standardised extraction template. Local experts verified country-level synopses. We combined the 16 country documents using thematic synthesis.

Results

There was significant heterogeneity in the data infrastructure of the countries examined. The majority of the databases and data sources focused on specialist palliative care services with a notable lack of data on palliative care delivered in primary and community care. Several countries have established bespoke palliative care databases; others harness existing data sources, and capitalise on the existence of unique patient identifiers. The gaps and limitations identified were commonly shared across all types of palliative and end of life care data infrastructure. Similarly, many of the factors deemed highly influential in implementing and sustaining existing databases are relevant across all data infrastructure.

Conclusions

This first-of-its-kind analysis details the characteristics of databases/data sources and highlights the significant heterogeneity which exists. The strengths and limitations of existing databases/data sources and the factors that influence how well these systems are sustained are examined, providing key learnings for those eager to improve the data infrastructure in their own jurisdictions.
在姑息治疗中衡量的是什么?16个国家例行数据收集的审查和综合
背景:人们越来越关注加强姑息治疗数据基础设施,以评估和提高护理质量。我们对政策文件进行了广泛的审查,以确定在姑息治疗中使用常规数据的国际最佳做法。方法在进行评估之前,我们确定了16个拥有完善的姑息治疗服务的国家。我们系统地在学术文献、灰色文献和政府文献中检索了每个国家的相关文献。对于每个国家,我们利用标准化提取模板编制了一个叙事综合。当地专家核实了国家级的概要。我们采用专题综合的方法综合了16个国家的文件。结果被调查国家的数据基础设施存在显著的异质性。大多数数据库和数据来源侧重于专科姑息治疗服务,明显缺乏关于初级和社区护理提供的姑息治疗的数据。一些国家已经建立了定制的姑息治疗数据库;另一些则利用现有的数据源,并利用存在的唯一患者标识符。所确定的差距和局限性在所有类型的姑息治疗和临终关怀数据基础设施中普遍存在。同样,许多被认为对实现和维护现有数据库有很大影响的因素也与所有数据基础设施相关。这是同类分析中首次详细介绍了数据库/数据源的特征,并强调了存在的显著异质性。审查了现有数据库/数据源的优势和局限性以及影响这些系统维持情况的因素,为那些渴望改善本国管辖范围内数据基础设施的人提供了重要的经验教训。
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
Health Policy Open
Health Policy Open Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
40 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信