Evaluation of the quality of care of a haemodialysis public-private partnership programme for patients with end-stage renal disease

Julie Y Chen, Eric Y F Wan, Karina H Y Chan, Anca K C Chan, Frank W K Chan, Cindy L K Lam, Julie Y Chen, Eric Y F Wan, Karina H Y Chan, Anca K C Chan, Frank W K Chan, Cindy L K Lam

Abstract

Background: Haemodialysis (HD) is one of the life-saving options for patients with end stage renal disease but demand for this treatment exceeds capacity in publicly funded hospitals. One novel approach to addressing this problem is through a shared-care model whereby government hospitals partner with qualified private HD service providers to increase the accessibility of HD for needy patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate and enhance the quality of care (QOC) provided in such a shared-care programme in Hong Kong, the Haemodialysis Public-Private Partnership Programme (HD-PPP).

Methods/design: This is a longitudinal study based on Action Learning and Audit Spiral methodologies to measure the achievement of pre-set target standards for the HD-PPP programme over three evaluation cycles. The QOC evaluation framework is comprised of structure, process and outcome criteria with target standards in each domain developed from review of the evidence and in close collaboration with the HD-PPP working group. During each evaluation cycle, coordinators of each study site complete a questionnaire to determine adherence with structural criteria of care. Process and clinical outcomes, such as adverse events and dialysis adequacy, are extracted from the patient records of consenting study participants while face-to-face interviews are conducted to ascertain patient-reported outcomes such as self-efficacy and health-related quality of life.

Discussion: The study relies on the successful implementation of partnership-based action research to develop an evidence-based and pragmatic framework for evaluation of quality of care in an iterative fashion, and to use it to identify possible areas of quality enhancements in a shared-care programme for HD patients. The approach we take in this study emphasizes partnership and engagement with the clinical and administrative programme team, a robust but flexible evaluation framework, direct observation and the potential to realize positive change. The experience will be useful to inform the process of coordinating research studies involving multiple stakeholders and results will help to guide service planning and policy decision making.

Trial registration: US Clinical Trial Registry NCT02307903.

Keywords: Action research; Audit; Community centre; End stage renal disease; Haemodialysis; Hospital; Quality of care; Shared care.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Development of the evaluation framework: an iterative and collaborative process

References

    1. Gibney N, Hoste E, Burdmann EA, Bunchman T, Kher V, Viswanathan R, Mehta RL, Ronco C. Timing of initiation and discontinuation of renal replacement therapy in AKI: unanswered Key questions. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3(3):876–880. doi: 10.2215/CJN.04871107.
    1. Lozano R, Naghavi M, Foreman K, Lim S, Shibuya K, Aboyans V, Abraham J, Adair T, Aggarwal R, Ahn SY, et al. Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2095–2128. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61728-0.
    1. Liyanage T, Ninomiya T, Jha V, Neal B, Patrice HM, Okpechi I, Zhao M-h, Lv J, Garg AX, Knight J, et al. Worldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review. Lancet. 2015;385(9981):1975–1982. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61601-9.
    1. United States Renal Data System . 2009 annual data report: atlas of chronic kidney disease and End-stage renal disease in the United States. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 2009.
    1. Yu AW-Y, Chau K-F, Ho Y-W, Li PK-T. Development of the “peritoneal dialysis first” model in Hong Kong. Perit Dial Int. 2007;27(Supplement 2):S53–S55.
    1. Roderick P, Armitage A, Nicholson T, Mehta R, Gerard K, Mullee M, Drey N, Lamping D, Feest T, Greenwood R, et al. A clinical and cost evaluation of hemodialysis in renal satellite units in England and Wales. American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation. 2004;44(1):121–131. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2004.03.031.
    1. Mowatt G, Vale L, MacLeod A. Systematic review of the effectiveness of home versus hospital or satellite unit hemodialysis for people with end-stage renal failure. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20(03):258–268. doi: 10.1017/S0266462304001060.
    1. Haemodialysis Public Private Partnership Programme (HD PPP) [].
    1. Revans RW. Action learning: New techniques for management. London: Blond and Briggs Ltd.; 1980.
    1. Baker R, Lakhani M, Fraser R, Cheater F. A model for clinical governance in primary care groups. BMJ. 1999;318(7186):779–783. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7186.779.
    1. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Q. 2005;83(4):691–729. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x.
    1. Tao X, Chow SK, Wong FK. Determining the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (KDQOL-36) BMC Nephrol. 2014;15:115. doi: 10.1186/1471-2369-15-115.
    1. Lam ET, Lam CL, Fong DY, Huang WW. Is the SF-12 version 2 Health Survey a valid and equivalent substitute for the SF-36 version 2 Health Survey for the Chinese? J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19(1):200–208. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01800.x.
    1. Howie J, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M, Walker JJ. A comparison of a Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. Fam Pract. 1998;15(2):165–171. doi: 10.1093/fampra/15.2.165.
    1. Lam CL, Yuen NY, Mercer SW, Wong W. A pilot study on the validity and reliability of the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) in a Chinese population. Fam Pract. 2010;27(4):395–403. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmq021.
    1. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–415. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.
    1. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(1):139–144.
    1. Ho Y-W, Chau K-F, Choy B-Y, Fung K-S, Cheng Y-L, Kwan T-H, Wong P-N, Lai W-M, Yuen S-K, Lo SH-K, et al. Hong Kong renal registry report 2012. Hong Kong Journal of Nephrology. 2013;15:28–43. doi: 10.1016/j.hkjn.2013.03.005.
    1. Fung CS, Weng CY, Dai DS, Kwok RL, Tsui EL, Wan YF, Wong W, Wong CK, Fong DY, Lam CL. Evaluation of the quality of care of a multi-disciplinary risk factor assessment and management programme (RAMP) for diabetic patients. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13:116–125. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-13-116.
    1. Yu EY, Wan EY, Chan KH, Wong CK, Kwok RL, Fong DY, Lam CL. Evaluation of the quality of care of a multi-disciplinary Risk Factor Assessment and Management Programme for Hypertension (RAMP-HT) BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16(1):71. doi: 10.1186/s12875-015-0291-0.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit