Initial Psychometric Properties of the Pain Care Quality Survey (PainCQ)

Evaluating the Quality of Pain Management Satisfaction Among Oncology Patients in a Hospital Setting: Psychometric Properties of the Arabic Version of Pain Care Quality Survey

PURPOSE

The purpose of this mixed-methods psychometric study was to translate and adapt the Arabic Pain Care Quality (APainCQ) Survey to Arabic and to measure the quality of pain care provided to Arab patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study used an iterative, mixed-methods approach that employed cognitive interviews, expert content analysis, and factor analysis to develop the APainCQ Survey. The study was conducted at Dubai Hospital, Dubai Health Authority, United Arab Emirates. Arabic-speaking patients admitted to the oncology/hematology inpatient units with a minimum 24-hour stay were eligible for the study.

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 155 patients. The iterative exploratory factor analysis process resulted in the sequential removal of three items. The results of the significant Bartlett test (P < .001) of sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test of 0.93 for both the health care team scale and the nurse scale. The total variance explained was 76.17% for the health care team scale and 60.91% for the nurse scale, which explained 56.51% for factor 1 with 14 items and 4.40% for factor 2. Regarding internal consistency reliability, Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega for the health care team scale and nurse scale were high; both values were .95. Internal consistency reliability of pain assessment and pain management subscales of nurse scales were also high, with values of 0.96 and 0.79, respectively. Moreover, there was a moderate correlation (r = 0.66; P < .001) between the two subscales in the nurse scale.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence that the APainCQ is a reliable and valid measure of pain dimensions, including pain management and monitoring. This APainCQ scale can potentially expand research and clinical assessment in the Arab world.

Cross-Cultural Translation of the nChinese Version of Pain Care Quality Surveys (C-PainCQ)

Health disparities in pain care continue to exist among non-English-speaking Chinese-Americans. The Pain Care Quality?© (PainCQ) surveys, a valid instrument measuring the quality of pain care from the patient’s perspective, is available only in English currently. This study generated a Chinese version of the PainCQ (C-PainCQ) following a cross-cultural translation approach to address health equity in pain care. A multicultural, bilingual expert team produced a good quality, prefinal version of C-PainCQ. Chinese-speaking patients (n = 55) evaluated conceptual and content equivalence while bilingual participants (n = 13) reviewed semantic equivalence of C-PainCQ items. Feedback from participants, including adding a new item related to education on medication compliance, was used to revise the tool. This C-PainCQ is ready for future research to examine the reliability and construct validity with a large sample of Chinese-speaking patients.

Dissemination and Implementation of Patient-centered Indicators of Pain Care Quality and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Previous approaches to measuring and improving nursing-sensitive, patient-centered metrics of pain quality and outcomes in hospitalized patients have been limited.

METHODS

In this translational research study, we disseminated and implemented pain quality indicators in 1611 medical and/or surgical, step-down, rehabilitation, critical access, and obstetrical (postpartum) units from 326 US hospitals participating in the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators. Eligible patients were English-speaking adults in pain. Trained nurses collected patients' perceptions via structured interview including 9 pain quality indicators, demographic, and clinical variables; these patient experience data were merged with unit and hospital level data. Analyses included geographic mapping; summary statistics and 3-level mixed effects modeling.

RESULTS

Hospitals in 45 states and District of Columbia participated. Of 22,293 screened patients, 15,012 were eligible; 82% verbally consented and participated. Pain prevalence was 72%. Participants were 59.4% female; ages ranged from 19 to 90+ (median: 59 y); 27.3% were nonwhite and 6.5% were Hispanic. Pain intensity on average over the past 24 hours was 6.03 (SD=2.45) on a 0-10 scale. 28.5% of patients were in severe pain frequently or constantly. Race (nonwhite), younger age, being female and nonsurgical were associated (P<0.001) with greater pain. Care quality indicators ranking lowest related to discussion of analgesic side effects and use of nonpharmacologic approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Unrelieved pain remains a high-volume problem. Individual factors and unit type were significantly associated with pain outcomes. Hospitals can employ these quality indicators to direct continuous quality improvement targeting pain care quality.

Insight into Patients' Experiences of Cancer Care in Taiwan: An Instrument Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation Study

Background: Since Taiwan launched the Cancer Prevention Act in 2003, several prevention strategies and early detection programs have been implemented to reduce the incidence, morbidity and mortality rates of cancer. However, most of the programs have concentrated on healthcare providers. Evaluations from the patient’s perspective have been lacking. Thus, in this study a cancer patient experience questionnaire was developed in the Taiwanese context and a preliminary nationwide investigation was conducted on the status of cancer care from the patient’s perspective. Methods: An extensive literature review was first conducted to collect information on the existing instruments used to measure the cancer patient’s experience. Thereafter, a multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to select an optimal instrument based on the IOM’s six domains for evaluating patient-centered care. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) translation procedure was applied to the questionnaire for cross-cultural adaptation. A nationwide field test was then implemented at certificated cancer care hospitals. Results: Fifteen questionnaires were collected for the literature review. The expert panel selected the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey based on the IOM’s recommendations. After cross-cultural translation of the questionnaire, a total of 4000 questionnaires were administered in 19 certificated cancer care hospitals and two major cancer patient associations, with 1010 being returned (25.25% response rate). Most of the respondents were middle-aged, and 70% were female. The respondents reported they had a good experience with cancer care, except for “Home care and support” and “Finding out what was wrong with you”. Stratified analysis was conducted, with the results showing that the cancer patients’ experiences varied depending on their sociodemographic and cancer-related characteristics. Conclusions: A Taiwanese version of the cancer patient experience survey questionnaire was developed. Its results showed that the cancer patient’s experiences varied, depending on the patient’s age, cancer type, and cancer history. This study can be used as a basis to establish a patient-centered care model for cancer care in Taiwan.

Quality Pain Management in Adult Hospitalized Patients: A Concept Evaluation

AIM

To explore the concept of quality pain management (QPM) in adult hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND

Pain is common in hospitalized patients, and pain management remains suboptimal in some settings.

DESIGN

A concept evaluation based on Morse et al.'s method.

DATA SOURCE

Of more than 5,000 articles found, data were restricted to 37 selected key articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

REVIEW METHODS

Data were extracted from the selected articles and then synthesized according to the following: definition, characteristics, boundaries, preconditions, and outcomes.

RESULTS

QPM relates to the Structure: organizationally supported evidence-based policies, competent staff, interprofessional and specialized care, and staff accountability;

PROCESS

screening, assessment/reassessment and communication of pain and its treatment, patient/family education, individualized evidence-based treatment, embedded in safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable services; and

OUTCOMES

reduced pain severity and functional interference, decreased prevalence/severity of adverse consequences from pain or pain treatment, and increase in patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

QPM is a multifaceted concept that remains poorly defined in the literature. Studies should aim to develop valid, reliable, and operational measures of the pillars of QPM and to look at the relationship among these factors. Authors need to state how they define and what aspects of QPM they are measuring.

Measuring the quality of patient-centered care: why patient-reported measures are critical to reliable assessment

PURPOSE

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified patient-centeredness as crucial to quality health care. The IOM endorsed six patient-centeredness dimensions that stipulated that care must be: respectful to patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs; coordinated and integrated; provide information, communication, and education; ensure physical comfort; provide emotional support; and involve family and friends. Patient-reported measures examine the patient's perspective and are essential to the accurate assessment of patient-centered care. This article's objectives are to: 1) use the six IOM-endorsed patient-centeredness dimensions as a framework to outline why patient-reported measures are crucial to the reliable measurement of patient-centered care; and 2) to identify existing patient-reported measures that assess each patient-centered care dimension.

METHODS

For each IOM-endorsed patient-centeredness dimension, the published literature was searched to highlight the essential role of patients in assessing patient-centered care and informing quality improvement efforts. Existing literature was also searched to identify examples of patient-reported measures that assess each patient-centeredness dimension.

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported measures are arguably the best way to measure patient-centeredness. For instance, patients are best positioned to determine whether care aligns with patient values, preferences, and needs and the Measure of Patient Preferences is an example of a patient-reported measure that does so. Furthermore, only the patient knows whether they received the level of information desired, and if information was understood and can be recalled. Patient-reported measures that examine information provision include the Lung Information Needs Questionnaire and the EORTC QLQ-INFO25. In relation to physical comfort, only patients can report the severity of physical symptoms and whether medications provide adequate relief. Patient-reported measures that investigate physical comfort include the Pain Care Quality Survey and the Brief Pain Inventory. Using patient-reported measures to regularly measure patient-centered care is critical to identifying areas of health care where improvements are needed.

Are we missing the Institute of Medicine's mark? A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures assessing quality of patient-centred cancer care

BACKGROUND

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has endorsed six dimensions of patient-centredness as crucial to providing quality healthcare. These dimensions outline that care must be: 1) respectful to patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs; 2) coordinated and integrated; 3) provide information, communication, and education; 4) ensure physical comfort; 5) provide emotional support-relieving fear and anxiety; and 6) involve family and friends. However, whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) comprehensively cover these dimensions remains unexplored. This systematic review examined whether PROMs designed to assess the quality of patient-centred cancer care addressed all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care and the psychometric properties of these measures.

METHODS

Medline, PsycINFO, Current Contents, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus were searched to retrieve published studies describing the development and psychometric properties of PROMs assessing the quality of patient-centred cancer care. Two authors determined if eligible PROMs included the six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care and evaluated the adequacy of psychometric properties based on recommended criteria for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, face/content validity, construct validity and cross-cultural adaptation.

RESULTS

Across all 21 PROMs, the most commonly included IOM dimension of patient-centred care was "information, communication and education" (19 measures). In contrast, only five measures assessed the "involvement of family and friends." Two measures included one IOM-endorsed patient-centred care dimension, two measures had two dimensions, seven measures had three dimensions, five measures had four dimensions, and four measures had five dimensions. One measure, the Indicators (Non-small Cell Lung Cancer), covered all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care, but had adequate face/content validity only. Eighteen measures met the recommended adequacy criteria for construct validity, 15 for face/content validity, seven for internal consistency, three for cross-cultural adaptation and no measure for test-retest reliability.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no psychometrically rigorous PROMs developed with cancer patients that capture all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care. Using more than one measure or expanding existing measures to cover all six patient-centred care dimensions could improve assessment and delivery of patient-centred care. Construction of new comprehensive measures with acceptable psychometric properties that can be used with the general cancer population may also be warranted.

Measuring nurses' impact on health care quality: progress, challenges, and future directions

BACKGROUND

Quality measurement is central in efforts to improve health care delivery and financing. The Interdisciplinary Nursing Quality Research Initiative supported interdisciplinary research teams to address gaps in measuring the contributions of nursing to quality care.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the research of 4 interdisciplinary teams funded by The Interdisciplinary Nursing Quality Research Initiative and reflect on challenges and future directions to improving quality measurement.

METHODS

Each team summarized their work including the targeted gap in measurement, the methods used, key results, and next steps. The authors discussed key challenges and recommended future directions.

RESULTS

These exemplar projects addressed cross-cutting issues related to quality; developed measures of patient experience; tested new ways to model the important relationships between structure, process, and outcome; measured care across the continuum; focused on positive aspects of care; examined the relationship of nursing care with outcomes; and measured both nursing and interdisciplinary care.

DISCUSSION

Challenges include: measuring care delivery from multiple perspectives; determining the dose of care delivered; and measuring the entire care process. Meaningful measures that are simple, feasible, affordable, and integrated into the care delivery system and electronic health record are needed. Advances in health information systems create opportunities to advance quality measurement in innovative ways.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings and products add to the robust set of measures needed to measure nurses' contributions to the care of hospitalized patients. The implementation of these projects has been rich with lessons about the ongoing challenges related to quality measurement.

Confirmatory factor analysis of the pain care quality surveys (PainCQ©)

OBJECTIVE

To examine the reliability and validity and to decrease the battery of items in the Pain Care Quality (PainCQ(©) ) Surveys.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Patient-reported data were collected prospectively from 337 hospitalized adult patients with pain on medical/surgical oncology units in four hospitals in three states.

STUDY DESIGN

This methodological study used a cross-sectional survey design. Each consenting patient completed two PainCQ(©) Surveys, the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, and demographic questions. Clinical data were extracted from the medical record.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

All data were double entered into a Microsoft Access database, cleaned, and then extracted into SPSS, AMOS, and Mplus for analysis.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Confirmatory factor analysis using Structural Equation Modeling supported the initial factor structure. Modification indices guided decisions that resulted in a superior, parsimonious model for the PainCQ-Interdisciplinary Care Survey (six items, two subscales) and the PainCQ-Nursing Care Survey (14 items, three subscales). Cronbach's alpha coefficients all exceeded .80.

CONCLUSIONS

Cumulative evidence supports the reliability and validity of the companion PainCQ(©) Surveys in hospitalized patients with pain in the oncology setting. The tools may be relevant in both clinical research and quality improvement. Future research is recommended in other populations, settings, and with more diverse groups.