scholarly journals The Palliative Care Outcome Scale: Turkish validity and Reliability Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 196
Author(s):  
Vildan Kocatepe ◽  
EmelEmine Kayıkçı ◽  
Ülkü Saygılı ◽  
Dilek Yıldırım ◽  
Gülbeyaz Can ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Reliability Study ◽  
Palliative Care Outcome Scale ◽  
Care Outcome

Comparison between patient-reported and clinician-reported outcomes: Validation of the Japanese version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for staff

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Hiroki Sakurai ◽  
Mitsunori Miyashita ◽  
Tatsuya Morita ◽  
Akemi Shirado Naito ◽  
Shingo Miyamoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Missing Values ◽  
Japanese Version ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Palliative Care Outcome Scale ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Care Outcome

Abstract Objectives The goal of palliative and supportive care is to improve patients’ quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the gold standard for the assessment of QoL and symptoms; however, when self-reporting is complicated, PROMs are often substituted with proxy-reported outcome measures, such as clinician-reported outcome measures. The objective of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) for staff (IPOS-Staff). Methods This multicenter, cross-sectional observational study was conducted concurrently with the validation of the IPOS for patients (IPOS-Patient). Japanese adult patients with cancer and their staff were recruited. We assessed the characteristics of the patients and staff members, missing values, prevalence, and total IPOS scores. For the analysis of criterion validity, intra-rater, and inter-rater reliability, we calculated intraclass correlations (ICCs). Results One hundred and forty-three patients completed the IPOS-Patient, and 79 medical staff members completed the IPOS-Staff. The most common missing values from IPOS-Staff were Family Anxiety (3.5%) and Sharing Feelings (3.5%). Over half of the patients scored themselves moderate or worse for Poor Mobility, Anxiety, and Family Anxiety, while staff members scored patients moderate or worse for Weakness, Anxiety, and Family Anxiety. For criterion validity (patient–staff agreement) as well as intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, ICCs ranged from 0.114 (Sharing Feelings) to 0.826 (Nausea), 0.720 (Anxiety) to 0.933 (Nausea), and −0.038 (Practical Problems) to 0.830 (Nausea), respectively. Significance of results The IPOS-Staff is easy to respond to; it has fair validity and reliability for physical items but poor for psycho-social items. By defining the context and objectives of its use and interpretation, the IPOS-Staff can be a useful tool for measuring outcomes in adult patients with cancer who cannot complete self-evaluations.

Implementing a patient-centred outcome measure in daily routine in a specialist palliative care inpatient hospital unit: An observational study

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alze Pereira dos Santos Tavares ◽  
Carolina Paparelli ◽  
Carolina Sassaki Kishimoto ◽  
Silvia Avo Cortizo ◽  
Karen Ebina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Missing Data ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Symptom Control ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Daily Routine ◽  
Palliative Care Outcome Scale ◽  
Care Outcome

Background: Gathering clinical evidence data on patients’ palliative care needs is paramount to identify changes in outcomes over time and maintaining on-going quality improvement. Implementation of patient-centred outcome measures has been widely recommended. The routine use of these instruments in daily practice is challenging and not widespread. Aim: To implement a patient-centred outcome measure in daily practice and fulfil one quality indicator: improve pain during the 72 h after admission, in at least 75% of patients. Design: An observational prospective study. The Palliative care Outcome Scale was used at admission (T0), third day (T1) and weekly. Setting/participants: Hospital palliative care unit with 17 individual rooms. All patients admitted to the unit were included in the study. Results: Preliminary results ( N = 84) revealed inconsistent and missing data (14%). Symptoms were sub-optimally controlled by T1. Processes changed, and only a team member could apply Palliative care Outcome Scale. Doctors were encouraged to grasp the meaning of Palliative care Outcome Scale results for each patient. The post-pilot included 317 patients. No missing data occurred. There was an improvement in most items between T0 and T1: ‘pain’ and ‘other symptoms’ presented statistical significant differences ( p < 0.05). Conclusion: Implementing a patient-centred outcome measure in a hospital palliative care service is feasible and improves quality of care. Controlling high pain at T0 improved (>80%) by T1. Results became more consistent and symptom control was improved overall. Patients are evaluated based on holistic domains by an interdisciplinary team and we have added a much needed measure to help guide improvement of the quality of care provided.

Palliative Care Outcome Scale

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Hearn ◽  
◽  
Irene J. Higginson
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Palliative Care Outcome Scale ◽  
Care Outcome

scholarly journals A brief, patient- and proxy-reported outcome measure in advanced illness: Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS)

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 1045-1057 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fliss EM Murtagh ◽  
Christina Ramsenthaler ◽  
Alice Firth ◽  
Esther I Groeneveld ◽  
Natasha Lovell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Advanced Illness ◽  
Proxy Report ◽  
Palliative Care Outcome Scale ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Care Outcome ◽  
Responsiveness To Change

Background: Few measures capture the complex symptoms and concerns of those receiving palliative care. Aim: To validate the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale, a measure underpinned by extensive psychometric development, by evaluating its validity, reliability and responsiveness to change. Design: Concurrent, cross-cultural validation study of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale – both (1) patient self-report and (2) staff proxy-report versions. We tested construct validity (factor analysis, known-group comparisons, and correlational analysis), reliability (internal consistency, agreement, and test–retest reliability), and responsiveness (through longitudinal evaluation of change). Setting/participants: In all, 376 adults receiving palliative care, and 161 clinicians, from a range of settings in the United Kingdom and Germany Results: We confirm a three-factor structure (Physical Symptoms, Emotional Symptoms and Communication/Practical Issues). Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows strong ability to distinguish between clinically relevant groups; total Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale subscale scores were higher – reflecting more problems – in those patients with ‘unstable’ or ‘deteriorating’ versus ‘stable’ Phase of Illness (F = 15.1, p < 0.001). Good convergent and discriminant validity to hypothesised items and subscales of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General is demonstrated. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows good internal consistency (α = 0.77) and acceptable to good test–retest reliability (60% of items kw > 0.60). Longitudinal validity in form of responsiveness to change is good. Conclusion: The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is a valid and reliable outcome measure, both in patient self-report and staff proxy-report versions. It can assess and monitor symptoms and concerns in advanced illness, determine the impact of healthcare interventions, and demonstrate quality of care. This represents a major step forward internationally for palliative care outcome measurement.

scholarly journals A Rasch Analysis of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 290-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret H. Sandham ◽  
Oleg N. Medvedev ◽  
Emma Hedgecock ◽  
Irene J. Higginson ◽  
Richard J. Siegert
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Rasch Analysis ◽  
Palliative Care Outcome Scale ◽  
Care Outcome
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document