Sheryl Zimmerman1, Lauren Cohen2, Jenny T van der Steen3, David Reed4, Mirjam C van Soest-Poortvliet5, Laura C Hanson2, Philip D Sloane6. 1. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA; School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. Electronic address: Sheryl_Zimmerman@unc.edu. 2. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA; Department of Medicine Palliative Care Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 3. Department of Nursing Home Medicine, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 5. Department of Nursing Home Medicine, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA; Department of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The two primary residential options for older adults who require supportive care are nursing homes and residential care/assisted living. More than one-quarter of all deaths in the U.S. occur in these settings. Although the information available on end of life in long-term care has been growing, the comparative suitability of various measures to guide this work is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the optimal measures to assess end-of-life care and outcomes in nursing homes and residential care/assisted living. METHODS: A total of 264 family members of decedents from 118 settings were interviewed and provided data on 11 instruments that have been used in, but not necessarily developed for, long-term care populations; Overall, 20 scales and subscales/indices were evaluated. Measures were compared on their psychometric properties and the extent to which they discriminated among important resident, family, and setting characteristics. RESULTS: Prioritizing measures that distinguish the assessment of care from the assessment of dying, and secondarily that exhibit an acceptable factor structure, this study recommends two measures of care-the Family Perceptions of Physician-Family Caregiver Communication and the End of Life in Dementia (EOLD)-Satisfaction With Care-and two measures of outcomes-the EOLD-Symptom Management and the EOLD-Comfort Assessment in Dying. An additional measure to assess outcomes is the Mini-Suffering State Examination (MSSE). The care measures and the MSSE are especially valuable as they discriminate between decedents who were and were not transferred immediately before death, an important outcome, and whether the family expected the death, a useful target for intervention. CONCLUSION: Despite these recommendations, measurement selection should be informed not only on the basis of psychometric properties but also by specific clinical and research needs. The data in this manuscript will help researchers, clinicians, and administrators understand the implications of choosing various measures for their work.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: The two primary residential options for older adults who require supportive care are nursing homes and residential care/assisted living. More than one-quarter of all deaths in the U.S. occur in these settings. Although the information available on end of life in long-term care has been growing, the comparative suitability of various measures to guide this work is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the optimal measures to assess end-of-life care and outcomes in nursing homes and residential care/assisted living. METHODS: A total of 264 family members of decedents from 118 settings were interviewed and provided data on 11 instruments that have been used in, but not necessarily developed for, long-term care populations; Overall, 20 scales and subscales/indices were evaluated. Measures were compared on their psychometric properties and the extent to which they discriminated among important resident, family, and setting characteristics. RESULTS: Prioritizing measures that distinguish the assessment of care from the assessment of dying, and secondarily that exhibit an acceptable factor structure, this study recommends two measures of care-the Family Perceptions of Physician-Family Caregiver Communication and the End of Life in Dementia (EOLD)-Satisfaction With Care-and two measures of outcomes-the EOLD-Symptom Management and the EOLD-Comfort Assessment in Dying. An additional measure to assess outcomes is the Mini-Suffering State Examination (MSSE). The care measures and the MSSE are especially valuable as they discriminate between decedents who were and were not transferred immediately before death, an important outcome, and whether the family expected the death, a useful target for intervention. CONCLUSION: Despite these recommendations, measurement selection should be informed not only on the basis of psychometric properties but also by specific clinical and research needs. The data in this manuscript will help researchers, clinicians, and administrators understand the implications of choosing various measures for their work.
Authors: Kurt Kroenke; Sujuan Gao; Kelly M Mosesso; Susan E Hickman; Laura R Holtz; Alexia M Torke; Nina M Johnson; Greg A Sachs Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Rose Miranda; Tinne Smets; Nele Van Den Noortgate; Jenny T van der Steen; Luc Deliens; Sheila Payne; Katarzyna Szczerbińska; Sophie Pautex; Liesbeth Van Humbeeck; Giovanni Gambassi; Marika Kylänen; Lieve Van den Block Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2021-03-07 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Ruth Piers; Gwenda Albers; Joni Gilissen; Jan De Lepeleire; Jan Steyaert; Wouter Van Mechelen; Els Steeman; Let Dillen; Paul Vanden Berghe; Lieve Van den Block Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Daniel Puente-Fernández; Rosel Jimeno-Ucles; Emilio Mota-Romero; Concepción Roldán; Katherine Froggatt; Rafael Montoya-Juárez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-16 Impact factor: 3.390