Home › Research › End-of-life care
Measuring the quality of dying and quality of care when dying in long-term care settings: a qualitative content analysis of available instruments
van Soest-Poortvliet MC, van der Steen JT, Zimmerman S, Cohen LW, Munn J, Achterberg WP, Ribbe MW, de Vet HC.. Journal of pain and symptom management, 2011-05-26
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Context Long-term care (LTC) settings have become a significant site for end-of-life care; consequently, instruments that assess the quality of dying and care may be useful in these settings. Objectives To evaluate the content of available measurement instruments to assess the quality of dying and care when dying. Methods Qualitative content analysis to categorize items as structure of care, process of care, satisfaction with health care (the first three representing quality of care and its evaluation), quality of dying, or patient factors. Results Instruments that measure mostly quality of care and its evaluation are the Family Perception of Physician-Family Caregiver Communication, End-of-Life in Dementia (EOLD) Satisfaction With Care, Family Perception of Care Scale, Toolkit of Instruments to Measure End-of-Life Care after-death bereaved family member interview (nursing home version), and the Family Assessment of Treatment at the End-of-Life Short version. Instruments measuring quality of dying are the EOLD-Comfort Assessment in Dying, EOLD-Symptom Management, Mini-Suffering State Examination, and Palliative Care Outcome Scale. The Quality of Dying in Long-Term Care measures care and dying. The Minimum Data Set-Palliative Care measures mostly dying and patient factors. The instruments differ in dementia specificity, time of administration, and respondent. Conclusion Instruments that assess quality when dying differ in several ways and most do not measure a single construct, which is relevant to guiding and evaluating care. Comparing psychometric properties and usefulness of instruments that measure similar constructs is the next step in determining which are best suited for use in LTC.
Key findings
- Context Long-term care (LTC) settings have become a significant site for end-of-life care; consequently, instruments that assess the quality of dying and care may be useful in these settings.
- Results Instruments that measure mostly quality of care and its evaluation are the Family Perception of Physician-Family Caregiver Communication, End-of-Life in Dementia (EOLD) Satisfaction With Care, Family Perception of Care Scale, Toolkit of Instruments to Measure End-of-Life Care after-death bereaved family member interview (nursing home version), and the Family Assessment of Treatment at the End-of-Life Short version.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of pain and symptom management) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2011 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 21620642) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
van Soest-Poortvliet, M. C., van der Steen, J. T., Zimmerman, S., Cohen, L. W., Munn, J., Achterberg, W. P., et al. (2011). Measuring the quality of dying and quality of care when dying in long-term care settings: a qualitative content analysis of available instruments. Journal of pain and symptom management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.02.018
Vancouver
van Soest-Poortvliet MC, van der Steen JT, Zimmerman S, Cohen LW, Munn J, Achterberg WP, et al. Measuring the quality of dying and quality of care when dying in long-term care settings: a qualitative content analysis of available instruments. Journal of pain and symptom management. 2011. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.02.018. PMID: 21620642.
BibTeX
@article{vansoestpoortvliet2011-21620642,
author = {van Soest-Poortvliet, M. C. and van der Steen, J. T. and Zimmerman, S. and Cohen, L. W. and Munn, J. and Achterberg, W. P. and Ribbe, M. W. and de Vet, H. C.},
title = {{Measuring the quality of dying and quality of care when dying in long-term care settings: a qualitative content analysis of available instruments}},
journal = {Journal of pain and symptom management},
year = {2011},
doi = {10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.02.018},
pmid = {21620642},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.02.018}
}