Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool into Japanese: A Preliminary Report

Adaptation and Validation of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT): A Quantitative Methodological Study

AIMS

To translate the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT) into Chinese and conduct preliminarily tests of its performance in hospitalized patients with cancer.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional validation study conducted from January to March 2024.

METHODS

SPICT 2022 was translated in both directions, following the Brislin translation model, and the Chinese version culturally debugged through expert consultation and pre-testing. Content validity was evaluated by expert scoring. Tool internal consistency was evaluated using KR-20 coefficient, and retest reliability was evaluated using kappa coefficient. The screening performance was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).

RESULTS

Of 388 hospitalized cancer patients included, approximately one-quarter had potential palliative care needs. Content validity of the Chinese version of SPICT was good, as were internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Accuracy (0.905), sensitivity (0.806), specificity (0.943), PPV (0.845), and NPV (0.926) for the Chinese version of SPICT indicated that it is an acceptable instrument.

CONCLUSION

The Chinese version of SPICT can be applied for screening of palliative care needs in hospitalized patients with cancer in China.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

The Chinese version of SPICT had been adapted to assist clinicians or nurses in quickly identifying hospitalized patients with cancer who may have palliative care needs. This is conducive to help clinical team to start palliative care consultation, care goal discussion and (or) referral for patients in clinical practice. And it probably helps to advance integration between palliative care assessment and routine oncology care assessment.

IMPACT

This study provided a screening tool for palliative care, with good validity and reliability, as well as excellent screening performance to facilitate palliative care need screening in clinical practice, promote palliative care referrals and improve patient quality of life.

REPORTING METHOD

This study was reported according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

Validation of a Supportive and Palliative Care Indicator Tool Among Patients Hospitalized Due to Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Palliative care, including symptom alleviation and advance-care planning, is relevant for patients with heart failure (HF). The Supportive and Palliative Care Indicator Tool (SPICT) is a tool for identifying patients who may benefit from palliative-care assistance but has not been validated in patients hospitalized due to HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Clinical backgrounds, symptom burdens and outcomes were evaluated using the SPICT as assessed on admission in consecutive hospitalized patients with HF. SPICT-positive was defined when 2 or more general indicators and a New York Heart Association class ≥ III were present. Of 601 patients hospitalized due to HF (mean age: 79 ± 12 years; male, 314 [52%]; and mean left ventricular ejection fraction: 44 ± 18%), 100 (17%) patients were SPICT-positive. SPICT-positive patients were older (85 ± 9 vs 78 ± 12 years; P < 0.001) and had higher clinical frailty scales (6 ± 1 vs 4 ± 1 points; P < 0.001), whereas symptom burdens assessed by the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale were not different (17 [13, 28] vs 20 [11, 26] points; P = 0.97) when compared with patients who were SPICT-negative. During the median follow-up period of 518 days, 178 patients (30%) died. Being SPICT-positive was independently associated with higher all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 3.49, 95% confidence interval: 2.41-5.05; P < 0.001) after adjusting for age, sex, New York Heart Association class IV, Get-With-The-Guideline risk score, N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide levels, and left ventricular ejection fractions.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients admitted for HF, being SPICT-positive was significantly associated with higher all-cause mortality rates, suggesting the utility of the SPICT as an indicator to initiate advance-care planning for end-of-life care among patients hospitalized due to HF.

Screening instruments for early identification of unmet palliative care needs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The early detection of individuals who require palliative care is essential for the timely initiation of palliative care services. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to (1) Identify the screening instruments used by health professionals to promote early identification of patients who may benefit from palliative care; and (2) Assess the psychometric properties and clinical performance of the instruments.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, CNKI and Wanfang from inception to May 2023. We used the COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement INstruments to assess the methodological quality of the development process for the instruments. The clinical performance of the instruments was assessed by narrative summary or meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted where necessary. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment tool.

RESULTS

We included 31 studies that involved seven instruments. Thirteen studies reported the development and validation process of these instruments and 18 studies related to assessment of clinical performance of these instruments. The content validity of the instruments was doubtful or inadequate because of very low to moderate quality evidence. The pooled sensitivity (Se) ranged from 60.0% to 73.8%, with high heterogeneity (I2 of 88.15% to 99.36%). The pooled specificity (Sp) ranges from 70.4% to 90.2%, with high heterogeneity (I2 of 96.81% to 99.94%). The Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT) had better performance in hospitals than in general practice settings (Se=79.8% vs 45.3%, p=0.004; Sp=59.1% vs 97.0%, p=0.000).

CONCLUSION

The clinical performance of existing instruments in identifying patients with palliative care needs early ranged from poor to reasonable. The SPICT is used most commonly, has better clinical performance than other instruments but performs better in hospital settings than in general practice settings.

Use of the supportive and palliative care indicators tool (SPICT™) for end-of-life discussions: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

In order to mitigate the distress associated with life limiting conditions it is essential for all health professionals not just palliative care specialists to identify people with deteriorating health and unmet palliative care needs and to plan care. The SPICT™ tool was designed to assist with this.

AIM

The aim was to examine the impact of the SPICT™ on advance care planning conversations and the extent of its use in advance care planning for adults with chronic life-limiting illness.

METHODS

In this scoping review records published between 2010 and 2024 reporting the use of the SPICT™, were included unless the study aim was to evaluate the tool for prognostication purposes. Databases searched were EBSCO Medline, PubMed, EBSCO CINAHL, APA Psych Info, ProQuest One Theses and Dissertations Global.

RESULTS

From the search results 26 records were reviewed, including two systematic review, two theses and 22 primary research studies. Much of the research was derived from primary care settings. There was evidence that the SPICT™ assists conversations about advance care planning specifically discussion and documentation of advance care directives, resuscitation plans and preferred place of death. The SPICT™ is available in at least eight languages (many versions have been validated) and used in many countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the SPICT™ appears to assist advance care planning. It has yet to be widely used in acute care settings and has had limited use in countries beyond Europe. There is a need for further research to validate the tool in different languages.

Palliative Care in the Community: The Greek Version of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT™)

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Systematic identification of persons with palliative care needs constitutes a major challenge for promoting palliative care in all levels of the health system, including primary care. The aim of this study was to translate, cross-culturally adapt, and content validate Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT) for use in the Greek primary care context. Secondary objectives were to probe the use of SPICT-GR in exemplary case vignettes, to discuss the clarity and comprehensibility of its content as well as the appropriateness, acceptability, and feasibility of the tool within the Greek primary care.

METHODS

The Greek translation and cross-cultural adaptation of SPICT™ followed World Health Organization recommendations for translation and adaptation of instruments. For this purpose a working group was set up consisting of 2 senior researchers, a primary care professional with postgraduate training in Palliative Medicine and a general practitioner (GP) with special interest in primary palliative care. Three focus groups comprised of health professionals (n = 23) working in primary care settings participated in the pilot testing phase. Participants also completed a questionnaire including rating their perceptions on tool's utility and feasibility as well as on the clarity and relevance of its items. Thematic analysis was used for focus groups discussions on how the tool was perceived and interpreted by health professionals in a Greek healthcare context and descriptive statistics for the quantitative analysis of the questionnaire data.

RESULTS

The majority assessed the tool as useful (65%), considered its implementation in primary care as feasible (91%) and rated its items as "relevant" or "very relevant" and "clear" or "very clear." Three themes emerged from focus groups discussions: Guiding clinical practice and facilitating collaboration; promoting comprehensive care and awareness for palliative care; applicability in and suitability for primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

SPICT-GR™ was identified as a practical and applicable tool for primary care, a source of guidance for the comprehensive identification of patients' palliative care needs, promoting awareness on palliative care and facilitating a shared language among health care professionals.