Dynamics of complex indicators of assessment of palliative care provided: a study of 2021-2022

The purpose of this work is to assess the subjective perception of satisfaction of palliative care users. Materials and methods. The material for the analysis was the results of a sociological survey of palliative care users over the age of 18, conducted in September-October 2022 by personal interviews at the place of residence of representatives of these target groups. A pilot study was previously conducted: 10 diagnostic expert interviews with representatives of the professional community and public organizations related to palliative care in the Russian Federation: and a pilot study of the developed questionnaires with the participation of 100 respondents. The study also carried out the calculation of complex indicators to calculate their subsequent dynamics. Results.  According to the results of the survey, complex indicators of the importance of the main parameters of the PMP were calculated for 9 main blocks. The study showed that the comprehensive assessment of the work of medical personnel in the provision of PMP increased by 7,1% – from 7,4 points in 2021 to 7,9 points on a 9-point scale in 2022. The increase in the regularity of rounds by the attending/on-duty doctor during hospital stay and the fact that the same medical worker conducted the observation was particularly strongly influenced by the growth of the comprehensive assessment (the increase in the parameter estimate was 11,3%). The study also showed that from the point of view of patients, the speed of providing PMP has significantly increased, the complex indicator for this block of issues has increased by 14,8% over the past year. The study also revealed an increase in patient satisfaction with awareness of the treatment process, it increased from 5,8 points in 2021 to 6,2 points in 2022, with the maximum possible number of points – 7. The patients especially appreciated the openness of medical workers in obtaining information about their condition and information about the qualifications of medical personnel. Of course, the complex indicator of satisfaction with the parameters of personal participation of patients in the organization of PMP gave a positive trend in all components. There is a positive dynamic in the assessment of patients with a comprehensive indicator of satisfaction with social and spiritual aspects of treatment, its growth was mainly provided by such components as professional psychological assistance and the opportunity to communicate with representatives of the clergy. Conclusion. The results of the survey of palliative care recipients demonstrate a high level of satisfaction of respondents with all parameters of palliative care. Comprehensive assessment parameters allow us to assess the dynamics of the main areas of assessment of the quality of PMP from the point of view of patients and cover all the main areas of palliative care, they allow us to track changes in their values over time, as well as to calculate them in the context of various groups of citizens, target audiences, and most importantly, to determine the development potential of a particular parameter of the quality of PMP.

1. Buzin V. N., Salagay O. O., Son I. M. The effectiveness of the Russian healthcare system during the COVID-19 epidemic: public opinion. // Profilakticheskaya Meditsina. 2021;24(2): 7–13.

2. Donika A. D. Socio-psychological competence of medical specialists in the context of palliative care. In the book: Alikbaeva L. A. editor. Current issues of hygiene. Collection of scientific papers of the VI All-Russian scientific-practical conference with international participation. Saint Petersburg, 2021. – С. 112–117.

3. Zadvornaya O. L., Rakhimova O.Yu. Medico-social aspects of development of palliative medical care. // Vestnik roszdravnadzora, 2020; (2): 47–56.

4. Nevzorova D. V., Ustinova A. I. The organization of palliative medical care in the constituent entities of the Russian federation during the spread of coronavirus infection. PALLIUM: palliativnaya i khospisnaya pomoshch’. // Rossiyskiy nauchno-prakticheskiy zhurnal. 2020; Special Issue: 11–14.

5. Novikov G. A., Waisman M. A., Rudoy S. V., Podkopaev D. V. Assessing the efficiency of palliative care provision for oncologic patients. // Palliativnaya meditsina i reabilitatsiya 2020; (2): 5–9.

6. Tkachenko A. E., Kushnareva I. V. Rendering pediatric palliative medical care on outpatient basis. // Pediatr, 2016;7(2):154–157.

7. Action plan (roadmap) «Improving the quality and accessibility of palliative care» until 2024, approved by the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation T. A. Golikova dated July 28, 2020 No. 6551p-P12. [Internet].URL: http://government.ru/news/40112/ (Accessed: 23.06.2022).

8. Cherchintseva E. A., Konopatskova O. M., Evdokimov G. M. Development of a system for providing palliative care to cancer patients in the Saratov region. // Palliativnaya meditsina i reabilitatsiya 2022; (1): 5–8.

9. Higginson I., Wade A., McCarthy M. Palliative care: views of patients and their families. // BMJ. 1990 Aug 4; 301(6746):277–81. DOI:10.1136/bmj.301.6746.277. PMID: 1697189; PMCID: PMC1663479.

10. Miyashita M., Morita T., Ichikawa T., Sato K., Shima Y., Uchitomi Y. Quality indicators of end-of-life cancer care from the bereaved family members’ perspective in Japan. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009 Jun;37(6):1019–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2008.05.015. Epub 2009 Mar 24. PMID: 19321296.

11. Sathyamurthy P.S, Madhavan S., Pandurangan V. (2021). Prevalence, Pattern and Functional Outcome of Post COVID-19 Syndrome in Older Adults. Cureus, 13 (8), e17189. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.17189

12. Steinhauser K. E., Christakis N. A., Clipp E. C., McNeilly M., McIntyre L., Tulsky J. A. Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers. // JAMA. 2000 Nov 15; 284 (19):2476–82. DOI: 10.1001/jama.284.19.2476. PMID: 11074777

13. Tripathy S. The COVID-19 pandemic and the elderly patient: review of current literature and knowledgebase. // J Geriatr Care Res. 2020; 7: 79–83.