rss
Qual Saf Health Care 18:174-180 doi:10.1136/qshc.2007.024836
  • Original research

A national facilitation project to improve primary palliative care: impact of the Gold Standards Framework on process and self-ratings of quality

Table 3 Responses to rating questions at baseline and follow-up* and the difference between scores
Quality measure addressed No of practices Range (minimum– maximum) Mean (SD) Median Wilcoxon signed ranks test statistics on significance of the difference between baseline and final ratings
Confidence regarding physical/psychosocial patient care Baseline 937 1–5 3.51 (0.77) 4.00
Final 942 1–5 3.94 (0.67) 4.00
Difference 924 −3–3 0.43 (0.86) 0.00 Z = −13.44; p<0.001
Quality of support offered to carers Baseline 936 1–5 3.38 (0.78) 3.00
Final 944 2–5 3.80 (0.69) 4.00
Difference 926 −2–4 0.42 (0.88) 0.00 Z = −13.10; p<0.001
Quality of support offered to practice staff Baseline 929 1–5 3.48 (0.82) 4.00
Final 934 1–5 3.81 (0.73) 4.00
Difference 909 −3–4 0.32 (0.89) 0.00 Z = −10.11; p<0.001
Quality of teamwork in the practice Baseline 942 1–5 3.83 (0.81) 4.00
Final 943 1–5 4.16 (0.73) 4.00
Difference 931 −3–3 0.32 (0.89) 0.00 Z = −10.34; p<0.001
Quality of palliative care for cancer patients Baseline 935 1–5 3.72 (0.73) 4.00
Final 936 1–5 4.16 (0.63) 4.00
Difference 916 −3–4 0.44 (0.81) 0.00 Z = −14.40; p<0.001
Level of co-working with palliative care specialists Baseline 933 1–5 3.65 (0.83) 4.00
Final 936 1–5 4.07 (0.72) 4.00
Difference 914 −2–4 0.41 (0.92) 0.00 Z = −12.47; p<0.001
  • *Range: 1 “very poor” to 5 “very good”.

This Article

Free sample

This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of BMJ Quality & Safety.
View free sample issue >>

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.