Is the Palliative Care Outcome Scale useful to staff in a day hospice unit?

Challenges in a six-phase process of questionnaire adaptation: findings from the French translation of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale

BACKGROUND

The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) was developed for evaluating essential outcomes for palliative care patients. Our objectives here are to describe the process of a six-phase cross-cultural adaptation of IPOS to French (IPOS-Fr), highlight the difficulties encountered and strategies to solve them, and discuss the implications that adaptation may have on the validity and reliability of a questionnaire.

METHODS

The adaptation of IPOS consisted of six phases: (i) literature review and interviews with target population; (ii) forward translation to French; (iii) backward translation to English; (iv) Expert Review; (v) cognitive interviews with target population; (vi) final review.

RESULTS

Translation, cognitive interviews, and exchanges with Expert Review members allowed to make changes adapted to the target language regarding item 5 ("vomiting") and 8 ("sore or dry mouth"), and to identify and address, in the original version of IPOS, syntactic inconsistencies in language used in items 11 to 15 and methodological problems with items 11 ("anxiety about treatment and illness"), 15 ("share … as much as you wanted") and 17 ("problems addressed"). The adaptation also indicated that patients might have difficulties in interpreting items 8 ("sore or dry mouth"), 10 ("poor mobility"), 11 ("anxiety"), 12 (projected feelings of family and friends), and 14 ("feeling at peace"), thus indicating the need of monitoring during the psychometric validation.

CONCLUSIONS

Following this process, IPOS-Fr has proved content and face validity. In our case, the adaptation allowed adjustments to be made to the questionnaire and, when this was not possible, highlighted potential biases and inconsistencies during the validation. The result relied on an intertwined and iterative process of seeking and reaching semantic, conceptual, and normative equivalence. We are now assessing the psychometrical properties of IPOS-Fr.

How do patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support clinician-patient communication and patient care? A realist synthesis

BACKGROUND

In this paper, we report the findings of a realist synthesis that aimed to understand how and in what circumstances patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support patient-clinician communication and subsequent care processes and outcomes in clinical care. We tested two overarching programme theories: (1) PROMs completion prompts a process of self-reflection and supports patients to raise issues with clinicians and (2) PROMs scores raise clinicians' awareness of patients' problems and prompts discussion and action. We examined how the structure of the PROM and care context shaped the ways in which PROMs support clinician-patient communication and subsequent care processes.

RESULTS

PROMs completion prompts patients to reflect on their health and gives them permission to raise issues with clinicians. However, clinicians found standardised PROMs completion during patient assessments sometimes constrained rather than supported communication. In response, clinicians adapted their use of PROMs to render them compatible with the ongoing management of patient relationships. Individualised PROMs supported dialogue by enabling the patient to tell their story. In oncology, PROMs completion outside of the consultation enabled clinicians to identify problematic symptoms when the PROM acted as a substitute rather than addition to the clinical encounter and when the PROM focused on symptoms and side effects, rather than health related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients did not always feel it was appropriate to discuss emotional, functional or HRQoL issues with doctors and doctors did not perceive this was within their remit.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper makes two important contributions to the literature. First, our findings show that PROMs completion is not a neutral act of information retrieval but can change how patients think about their condition. Second, our findings reveal that the ways in which clinicians use PROMs is shaped by their relationships with patients and professional roles and boundaries. Future research should examine how PROMs completion and feedback shapes and is influenced by the process of building relationships with patients, rather than just their impact on information exchange and decision making.

Using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Quality Improvement in Clinical Genetics: an Exploratory Study

International advocacy of patient-centred healthcare delivery has led to emphasis on the (re)design and evaluation of healthcare processes and outcomes from a patient perspective. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have significant potential to inform such attempts. However there is limited understanding of the processes by which this can be achieved. This exploratory study followed attempts to utilise two different PROMs measures to support service quality improvement in clinical genetics. PROMs used were the Genetic Counseling Outcome Scale (GCOS-24), a well-validated clinical genetics-specific PROM and Euroqol (EQ-5D), a generic PROM favoured by the UK National Institute for Health and Excellence (NICE). Both of these PROMs enable pre/post intervention comparison. A service audit tool was also used, premised on a patient-reported experience measure. In addition, the study draws on interviews with clinical staff to identify challenges associated with the use of PROMs (response rate, data collection, analysis). Benefits are also explored and include the provision of insight into patients' needs; complementing clinical judgement; identification of needs being met, evidencing the benefit of services provided; prompting consideration of areas requiring attention; and encouraging professional development.

Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care

Background

The feedback of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data is intended to support the care of individual patients and to act as a quality improvement (QI) strategy.

Objectives

To (1) identify the ideas and assumptions underlying how individual and aggregated PROMs data are intended to improve patient care, and (2) review the evidence to examine the circumstances in which and processes through which PROMs feedback improves patient care.

Design

Two separate but related realist syntheses: (1) feedback of aggregate PROMs and performance data to improve patient care, and (2) feedback of individual PROMs data to improve patient care.

Interventions

Aggregate – feedback and public reporting of PROMs, patient experience data and performance data to hospital providers and primary care organisations. Individual – feedback of PROMs in oncology, palliative care and the care of people with mental health problems in primary and secondary care settings.

Main outcome measures

Aggregate – providers’ responses, attitudes and experiences of using PROMs and performance data to improve patient care. Individual – providers’ and patients’ experiences of using PROMs data to raise issues with clinicians, change clinicians’ communication practices, change patient management and improve patient well-being.

Data sources

Searches of electronic databases and forwards and backwards citation tracking.

Review methods

Realist synthesis to identify, test and refine programme theories about when, how and why PROMs feedback leads to improvements in patient care.

Results

Providers were more likely to take steps to improve patient care in response to the feedback and public reporting of aggregate PROMs and performance data if they perceived that these data were credible, were aimed at improving patient care, and were timely and provided a clear indication of the source of the problem. However, implementing substantial and sustainable improvement to patient care required system-wide approaches. In the care of individual patients, PROMs function more as a tool to support patients in raising issues with clinicians than they do in substantially changing clinicians’ communication practices with patients. Patients valued both standardised and individualised PROMs as a tool to raise issues, but thought is required as to which patients may benefit and which may not. In settings such as palliative care and psychotherapy, clinicians viewed individualised PROMs as useful to build rapport and support the therapeutic process. PROMs feedback did not substantially shift clinicians’ communication practices or focus discussion on psychosocial issues; this required a shift in clinicians’ perceptions of their remit.

Strengths and limitations

There was a paucity of research examining the feedback of aggregate PROMs data to providers, and we drew on evidence from interventions with similar programme theories (other forms of performance data) to test our theories.

Conclusions

PROMs data act as ‘tin openers’ rather than ‘dials’. Providers need more support and guidance on how to collect their own internal data, how to rule out alternative explanations for their outlier status and how to explore the possible causes of their outlier status. There is also tension between PROMs as a QI strategy versus their use in the care of individual patients; PROMs that clinicians find useful in assessing patients, such as individualised measures, are not useful as indicators of service quality.

Future work

Future research should (1) explore how differently performing providers have responded to aggregate PROMs feedback, and how organisations have collected PROMs data both for individual patient care and to improve service quality; and (2) explore whether or not and how incorporating PROMs into patients’ electronic records allows multiple different clinicians to receive PROMs feedback, discuss it with patients and act on the data to improve patient care.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005938.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The use of two common palliative outcome measures in clinical care and research: a systematic review of POS and STAS

The Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS) and the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS) are outcome measures assessing quality of care in palliative care patients. This review aims to appraise their use in clinical care and research. Five electronic databases were searched (February 2010) for original papers describing the validation or use of POS and/or STAS. Of the 83 papers included, 43 studies were on POS, 39 on STAS and one study using both. Eight STAS studies validated the original version, four an adaptation; 20 studies applied the STAS in another culture and 19 in other languages. POS papers reported included: 14 adapted POS versions, 12 translations of the POS and 15 studies of use in different cultures. Both measures have been used in cancer, HIV/AIDS and in mixed groups. POS has also been applied in neurological, kidney, pulmonary and heart disease. Both tools were used in different areas such as the evaluation of care or interventions, description of symptom prevalence and implementation of outcome measures in clinical practice. Overall, they seem to be well accepted tools for outcome measurement in palliative care, both in clinical care and research.

Psychological well-being and quality of care: a factor-analytic examination of the palliative care outcome scale

CONTEXT

The Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS) is a widely used outcome measure in palliative care research, and has good psychometric properties. It has been used for clinical or research purposes in specialist cancer centers, nursing homes, day hospice units, and hospice settings in a growing number of countries. However, the POS has not yet been examined using factor analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to examine the internal factor structure of the POS.

METHODS

Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses were used for secondary analysis of two existing POS data sets of British patients, most of whom were cancer patients.

RESULTS

We began with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which indicated that the POS is not a unidimensional scale. This was followed by an exploratory factor analysis that suggested two factors-one reflecting a psychological well-being dimension and the other consisting of three items relating to the standard of professional care. A similar two-factor structure also was identified in the second sample using CFA.

CONCLUSION

The POS appears to capture two factors, psychological status and quality of care, and to have three items that function independently (family anxiety, symptoms, and pain control). Our findings suggest that future evaluations of palliative care services should include assessment not only of symptoms and well-being or quality of life, but also of quality of care, and that unidimensional measures will not capture all relevant aspects in palliative care.

Use of the palliative outcome scale in Argentina: a cross-cultural adaptation and validation study

Although measuring outcomes is essential to ensuring palliative care effectiveness, there is an absence of properly validated measures in many countries. We undertook a cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Palliative Outcome Scale (POS) into a Spanish (Argentina) language and cultural context. The methodology used a sequence of phases: 1) verification of conceptual equivalence (literature review, professional interviews, and patient focus groups); 2) multiple translations; 3) committee review; and 4) field testing. Psychometric analysis entailed evaluation of quantitative content validity, construct validity, staff and patients' ratings comparison, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness to change. Conceptual equivalence was achieved. Multiple changes were introduced after the translations and field testing in 65 patients and 20 professionals. Content validity was high for all but one item. Construct validity against a validated quality-of-life measure (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life C-30) was confirmed (rho=0.74, P<0.0005). There was acceptable agreement between staff and patients (Cohen's weighted kappa >0.3) for 5/10, 8/10, and 6/9 items at each of three time-point evaluations and good correlation for all but one item (Spearman coefficient >0.7). Internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach's alpha=0.68-0.69 and 0.66-0.73) for patient and staff ratings, respectively, and test-retest reliability showed very high agreement for every item (>0.80). The Argentine POS showed adequate responsiveness to change, although significant difference was reached for only 3 out of 10 items for patients and staff, respectively. Completion of the POS did not take more than 12 and 6 minutes for patients and staff, respectively. This study indicates that the Argentine POS is a valid and reliable measure of palliative care outcomes with advanced cancer patients.