• Dong Wook Shin, Ji Eun Choi, Jung Hoe Kim, Ji Soo Joo, Jin Young Choi, Jina Kang, Young Ji Baek, Ha Na Mo, Jong Hyock Park, and Eun Cheol Park.
• Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
• J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011 Aug 1; 42 (2): 251-64.

ContextThere is an increasing need for the comparative assessment of palliative care services; however, few systematic empirical studies have been performed to determine the most feasible, representative, efficient survey method.ObjectivesTo investigate the feasibility, representativeness, and efficiency of several survey methods.MethodsThis study was performed as a part of a national initiative to develop a system to evaluate the quality of palliative care services. Three separate but related surveys of patients, caregivers, and bereaved family members were conducted. These surveys were designed to simulate an independent assessment in a nationwide quality evaluation project.ResultsThe effective response rates for the patient, caregiver, and bereavement surveys were 30.4% (105 of 344), 46.5% (160 of 344), and 20.9% (501 of 2398), respectively. Subjects who responded to the patient and caregiver surveys were likely to have better physical and mental conditions, whereas subjects who responded to the bereaved family survey did not differ significantly from nonrespondents in regard to patient characteristics, except for a small difference in patient gender (females: 47.2% vs. 41.7%, P=0.028). The average number of responses per institution was 3.2, 4.8, and 15.2, respectively. The cost of the patient and caregiver surveys was much higher than the cost of the bereaved family member survey.ConclusionThere were significant differences between the three methods. Despite the low response rate, our findings suggest that the bereaved family member survey has strengths in terms of feasibility and efficiency, and could be considered as a practical option for the comparative assessment of palliative care services by an independent body.Copyright © 2011 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

19 keywords...

hide…