3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Description of patient reported experience measures (PREMs) for hospitalised patients with palliative care needs and their families, and how these map to noted areas of importance for quality care: A systematic review

      review-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:

          The global need for focused improvements in palliative care within the acute hospital setting is well noted. A large volume of evidence exists detailing what hospitalised patients with palliative care needs and their families note as important for high quality care. Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) are one mechanism that hospitals could use to inform improvement work. To date there has not been a review of PREMs available for hospitalised patients with palliative care needs and/or their family, nor how they align with noted priorities for high quality care.

          Aim:

          To identify and describe PREMs designed for hospitalised patients with palliative care needs and their families; and their alignment with patient and family identified domains for high quality care.

          Design:

          A systematic review.

          Data sources:

          A systematic search of CINAHL, Medline and PsycInfo was conducted up to September 23, 2022 and supplemented by handsearching article reference lists and internet searches. PREMs written in English and designed for patients with palliative care needs in acute hospitals were eligible for inclusion. Included PREMs were described by: summarising key characteristics; and mapping their items to domains noted to be important to hospitalised patients with palliative care needs and their families informed by outcomes from a published study completed in 2021. Evidence for psychometric properties were reviewed.

          Results:

          Forty-four PREMs with 827 items were included. Items per PREM varied from 2 to 85 (median 25, IQR 13–42). Two-thirds ( n = 534, 65%) of the items were designed for families and a third ( n = 283, 34%) for hospitalised patients, and very few ( n = 10, 1%) for both. Sixty-six percent of items measured person-centred care, 30% expert care and 4% environmental aspects of care. Available PREMs address between 1 and 11 of the 14 domains of importance for quality palliative care. PREMs had a median of 38% (IQR 25.4–56.3) of items >Grade 8 measured by the Flesch-Kincaid readability test, with Grade 8 or lower recommended to ensure health information is as accessible as possible across the population.

          Conclusions:

          Whilst 44 PREMs are available for hospitalised patients with palliative care needs or their families, a varied number of items are available for some domains of care provision that are important, compared to others. Few are suitable for people with lower levels of literacy or limited cognitive capacity due to illness.

          Related collections

          Most cited references87

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content

            Background The COSMIN checklist (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) was developed in an international Delphi study to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health-related patient reported outcomes (HR-PROs). In this paper, we explain our choices for the design requirements and preferred statistical methods for which no evidence is available in the literature or on which the Delphi panel members had substantial discussion. Methods The issues described in this paper are a reflection of the Delphi process in which 43 panel members participated. Results The topics discussed are internal consistency (relevance for reflective and formative models, and distinction with unidimensionality), content validity (judging relevance and comprehensiveness), hypotheses testing as an aspect of construct validity (specificity of hypotheses), criterion validity (relevance for PROs), and responsiveness (concept and relation to validity, and (in) appropriate measures). Conclusions We expect that this paper will contribute to a better understanding of the rationale behind the items, thereby enhancing the acceptance and use of the COSMIN checklist.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Report: not found

              Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Palliat Med
                Palliat Med
                PMJ
                sppmj
                Palliative Medicine
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                0269-2163
                1477-030X
                24 April 2023
                July 2023
                : 37
                : 7
                : 898-914
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Health, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
                [2 ]Faculty of Health, Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care through Clinical Research and Translation (IMPACCT), University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia
                Author notes
                [*]Claudia Virdun, Faculty of Health, Cancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Nursing, Q Block, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove QLD 4059, Australia. Email: claudia.virdun@ 123456qut.edu.au
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3945-0749
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9496-9546
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6121-5409
                Article
                10.1177_02692163231169319
                10.1177/02692163231169319
                10320712
                37092501
                bd33a195-8079-4be9-9f3f-a48b0a0c8761
                © The Author(s) 2023

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any 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: NSW Health Bureau of Health Information Palliative Care – Experiences of Patients and Carers Project, ;
                Categories
                Review Articles
                Custom metadata
                ts1

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                palliative care,hospital,quality of care,quality improvement,surveys,questionnaires,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article