40
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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 k w > 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.

          In recent years quality of life instruments have been featured as primary outcomes in many randomized trials. One of the challenges facing the investigator using such measures is determining the significance of any differences observed, and communicating that significance to clinicians who will be applying the trial results. We have developed an approach to elucidating the significance of changes in score in quality of life instruments by comparing them to global ratings of change. Using this approach we have established a plausible range within which the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) falls. In three studies in which instruments measuring dyspnea, fatigue, and emotional function in patients with chronic heart and lung disease were applied the MCID was represented by mean change in score of approximately 0.5 per item, when responses were presented on a seven point Likert scale. Furthermore, we have established ranges for changes in questionnaire scores that correspond to moderate and large changes in the domains of interest. This information will be useful in interpreting questionnaire scores, both in individuals and in groups of patients participating in controlled trials, and in the planning of new trials.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Family perspectives on end-of-life care at the last place of care.

            Over the past century, nursing homes and hospitals increasingly have become the site of death, yet no national studies have examined the adequacy or quality of end-of-life care in institutional settings compared with deaths at home. To evaluate the US dying experience at home and in institutional settings. Mortality follow-back survey of family members or other knowledgeable informants representing 1578 decedents, with a 2-stage probability sample used to estimate end-of-life care outcomes for 1.97 million deaths from chronic illness in the United States in 2000. Informants were asked via telephone about the patient's experience at the last place of care at which the patient spent more than 48 hours. Patient- and family-centered end-of-life care outcomes, including whether health care workers (1) provided the desired physical comfort and emotional support to the dying person, (2) supported shared decision making, (3) treated the dying person with respect, (4) attended to the emotional needs of the family, and (5) provided coordinated care. For 1059 of 1578 decedents (67.1%), the last place of care was an institution. Of 519 (32.9%) patients dying at home represented by this sample, 198 (38.2%) did not receive nursing services; 65 (12.5%) had home nursing services, and 256 (49.3%) had home hospice services. About one quarter of all patients with pain or dyspnea did not receive adequate treatment, and one quarter reported concerns with physician communication. More than one third of respondents cared for by a home health agency, nursing home, or hospital reported insufficient emotional support for the patient and/or 1 or more concerns with family emotional support, compared with about one fifth of those receiving home hospice services. Nursing home residents were less likely than those cared for in a hospital or by home hospice services to always have been treated with respect at the end of life (68.2% vs 79.6% and 96.2%, respectively). Family members of patients receiving hospice services were more satisfied with overall quality of care: 70.7% rated care as "excellent" compared with less than 50% of those dying in an institutional setting or with home health services (P<.001). Many people dying in institutions have unmet needs for symptom amelioration, physician communication, emotional support, and being treated with respect. Family members of decedents who received care at home with hospice services were more likely to report a favorable dying experience.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Validation of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale.

              The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) is a nine-item patient-rated symptom visual analogue scale developed for use in assessing the symptoms of patients receiving palliative care. The purpose of this study was to validate the ESAS in a different population of patients. In this prospective study, 240 patients with a diagnosis of cancer completed the ESAS, the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS), and the Functional Assessment Cancer Therapy (FACT) survey, and also had their Karnofsky performance status (KPS) assessed. An additional 42 patients participated in a test-retest study. The ESAS "distress" score correlated most closely with physical symptom subscales in the FACT and the MSAS and with KPS. The ESAS individual item and summary scores showed good internal consistency and correlated appropriately with corresponding measures from the FACT and MSAS instruments. Individual items between the instruments correlated well. Pain ratings in the ESAS, MSAS, and FACT correlated best with the "worst-pain" item of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Test-retest evaluation showed very good correlation at 2 days and a somewhat smaller but significant correlation at 1 week. A 30-mm visual analogue scale cutoff point did not uniformly distinguish severity of symptoms for different symptoms. For this population, the ESAS was a valid instrument; test-retest validity was better at 2 days than at 1 week. The ESAS "distress" score tends to reflect physical well-being. The use of a 30-mm cutoff point on visual analogue scales to identify severe symptoms may not always apply to symptoms other than pain.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Palliat Med
                Palliat Med
                PMJ
                sppmj
                Palliative Medicine
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                0269-2163
                1477-030X
                12 June 2019
                September 2019
                : 33
                : 8
                : 1045-1057
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK
                [2 ]Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, King’s College London, London, UK
                [3 ]Department of Palliative Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
                [4 ]Center for Palliative Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
                [5 ]Interdisciplinary Centre for Palliative Medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
                Author notes
                [*]Fliss EM Murtagh, Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Allam Medical Building, Hull HU6 7RX, UK. Email: fliss.murtagh@ 123456hyms.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1289-3726
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9996-1818
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0726-0502
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6594-799X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9756-9954
                Article
                10.1177_0269216319854264
                10.1177/0269216319854264
                6691591
                31185804
                a0e7edfc-391f-47d2-9d63-02cd14fc9f01
                © The Author(s) 2019

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: Programme Grants for Applied Research, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100007602;
                Award ID: RP-PG-1210-12015
                Categories
                Original Articles

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                outcome and process assessment,validation studies,psychometrics,reliability,patient-reported outcome measures,palliative care,symptom assessment

                Comments

                Comment on this article