Modified Delphi Consensus on Developing Home Care Service Quality Indicator for Stroke Survivor in Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Nur Chayati; Christantie Effendy; Ismail Setyopranoto

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2019.455

Authors

Nur Chayati School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Indonesia; Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
Christantie Effendy Medical and Surgical Nursing Department, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
Ismail Setyopranoto Neurology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.455

Keywords:

home care, indicator development, quality service, quality of care, Modified Delphi

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Assessing the quality of health services provided at home (home care) is a challenge. The formulation of indicators requires open-minded people, who able to formulate several purposes objectively, and play an active role in decision making.

PURPOSE: To test the face validity of the home care quality indicator in stroke patients with the modified Delphi method.

METHOD: Eighty-one indicators generated from previous studies were assessed using 3 processes to get the final results: 1) conducted modified Delphi in two rounds, namely rating or scoring by experts (using median scores); 2) reviewing qualitative suggestions from experts during the Delphi process (using comments from both Delphi rounds); 3) sorting out and correcting the grammar of the appropriate indicator (based on the median score > 7, and no disagreement).

RESULT: Eighty-seven experts were involved in the first round Delphi and 34 experts in the second round. The experts were home care team selected from health care institutions in Yogyakarta with various professional backgrounds. Delphi process resulted in 67 indicators from 81 indicators which were divided into 10 domains: 1) Personal (2 indicators), 2) Documents (13 indicators), 3) Professionalism development (3 indicators), 4) Supporting facilities (8 indicators), 5) Administrative activities (4 indicators), 6) Health workers interaction with patients and families (15 indicators), 7) Physical conditions (2 indicators), 8) Self-actualization (1 indicator), 9) Psychological condition (5 indicators), 10) Family independent and coping (14 indicators). Selected indicators got to score more than 7 and no disagreement at all.

CONCLUSION: Sixty-seven indicators of the quality of home care, which were generated from modified Delphi consensus, were face validated. Further research could be conducted particularly on the trial process of these indicators at the actual home dwelling service setting.