Assessing quality of care for the dying from the bereaved relatives' perspective: Using pre-testing survey methods across seven countries to develop an international outcome measure

Catriona Rachel Mayland, Christina Gerlach, Katrin Sigurdardottir, Marit Irene Tuen Hansen, Wojciech Leppert, Andrzej Stachowiak, Maria Krajewska, Eduardo Garcia-Yanneo, Vilma Adriana Tripodoro, Gabriel Goldraij, Martin Weber, Lair Zambon, Juliana Nalin Passarini, Ivete Bredda Saad, John Ellershaw, Dagny Faksvåg Haugen, Catriona Rachel Mayland, Christina Gerlach, Katrin Sigurdardottir, Marit Irene Tuen Hansen, Wojciech Leppert, Andrzej Stachowiak, Maria Krajewska, Eduardo Garcia-Yanneo, Vilma Adriana Tripodoro, Gabriel Goldraij, Martin Weber, Lair Zambon, Juliana Nalin Passarini, Ivete Bredda Saad, John Ellershaw, Dagny Faksvåg Haugen

Abstract

Background:: The provision of care for dying cancer patients varies on a global basis. In order to improve care, we need to be able to evaluate the current level of care. One method of assessment is to use the views from the bereaved relatives.

Aim:: The aim of this study is to translate and pre-test the ‘Care Of the Dying Evaluation’ (CODETM) questionnaire across seven participating countries prior to conducting an evaluation of current quality of care.

Design:: The three stages were as follows: (1) translation of CODE in keeping with standardised international principles; (2) pre-testing using patient and public involvement and cognitive interviews with bereaved relatives; and (3) utilising a modified nominal group technique to establish a common, core international version of CODE.

Setting/participants:: Hospital settings: for each country, at least five patient and public involvement representatives, selected by purposive sampling, fed back on CODETM questionnaire; and at least five bereaved relatives to cancer patients undertook cognitive interviews. Feedback was collated and categorised into themes relating to clarity, recall, sensitivity and response options. Structured consensus meeting held to determine content of international CODE (i-CODE) questionnaire.

Results:: In total, 48 patient and public involvement representatives and 35 bereaved relatives contributed to the pre-testing stages. No specific question item was recommended for exclusion from CODETM. Revisions to the demographic section were needed to be culturally appropriate.

Conclusion:: Patient and public involvement and bereaved relatives’ perceptions helped enhance the face and content validity of i-CODE. A common, core international questionnaire is now developed with key questions relating to quality of care for the dying.

Keywords: Terminal care; cognitive interviewing; proxy; quality of care for the dying; quality of healthcare; survey and questionnaire.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Methods used to develop the international ‘Care Of the Dying Evaluation’ (i-CODE) questionnaire.

References

    1. The Economist Intelligence Unit. The 2015 quality of death index. Lien Foundation, (2015, accessed 6 March 2018).
    1. Pastrana T, De Lima L, Wenk R, et al. Atlas de cuidados paliativos de Latinoamérica ALCP, 1st ed. Houston, TX: IAHPC Press, (2012, accessed 13 May 2018).
    1. Royal College of Physicians (RCP). End of life care audit – dying in hospital. London: RCP, (2016, accessed 6 March 2018).
    1. Burge F, Lawson B, Johnston G, et al. Bereaved family member perceptions of patient-focused family-centred care during the last 30 days of life using a mortality follow-back survey: does location matter? BMC Palliat Care 2014; 13: 25.
    1. Office for National Statistics. National survey of bereaved people (VOICES) 2014. Office for National Statistics, (accessed 28 February 2018).
    1. Van der Heide A, de Vogel-Voogt E, Visser AP, et al. Dying at home or in an institution: perspectives of Dutch physicians and bereaved relatives. Support Care Cancer 2007; 15: 1413–1421.
    1. Department of Health. End of life care strategy: promoting high quality care for all adults at the end of life. London: Department of Health, 2008.
    1. Mayland CR, Williams EMI, Ellershaw J. How well do current instruments using bereaved relatives’ views evaluate care for dying patients. Palliat Med 2008; 22(2): 133–144.
    1. Kupeli N, Candy B, Tamura-Rose G, et al. Tools measuring quality of death, dying, and care, completed after death: systematic review of psychometric properties. Patient. Epub ahead of print 24 August 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-018-0328-2.
    1. Mayland CR, Lees C, Germain A, et al. Caring for those who die at home: the use and validation of ‘Care Of the Dying Evaluation’ (CODE) with bereaved relatives. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2014; 4(2): 167–174.
    1. Mayland CR, Williams EMI, Ellershaw JE. Assessing quality of care for the dying: the development and initial validation of a postal self-completion questionnaire for bereaved relatives. Palliat Med 2012; 26(7): 897–907.
    1. Mayland CR, Williams EMI, Addington-Hall J, et al. Does the ‘Liverpool Care Pathway’ facilitate an improvement in quality of care for dying cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2013; 108(10): 1942–1948.
    1. Mayland CR, Williams EMI, Addington-Hall J, et al. Assessing the quality of care for dying patients from the bereaved relatives’ perspective: further validation of ‘evaluating care and health outcomes – for the dying’. J Pain Symp Manage 2014; 47(4): 687–696.
    1. Mayland CR, Mulholland H, Gambles M, et al. How well do we currently care for our dying patients in acute hospitals: the views of the bereaved relatives? BMJ Support Palliat Care 2017: 316–325.
    1. Quality assurance for care of the dying: Cheshire & Merseyside strategic clinical network. Network Report, October, (2015, accessed 28 February 2018).
    1. Mayland CR, McGlinchey T, Gambles M, et al. Quality assurance for care of the dying: engaging with clinical services to facilitate a regional cross-sectional survey of bereaved relatives’ views. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18(1): 761.
    1. (accessed 6 December 2018).
    1. Johnston C, Aaronson N, Blazeby JM, et al. On behalf of the EORTC quality of life group. Guidelines for developing questionnaire modules. 4th ed. 2011. April, (last accessed 6 December 2018)
    1. Sodergren SC, Copson E, White A, et al. EORTC Quality of life group translation procedure, 4th ed. Brussels: EORTC.
    1. McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP. How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharm 2016; 38(3): 655–662.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3(2): 77–101.
    1. Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing in practice: think-aloud, verbal probing and other techniques In: Willis GB. (ed.) Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2011, pp. 42–65.
    1. Fowler FJ, Jr, Coppola KM, Teno JM. Methodological challenges for measuring quality of care at the end of life. J Pain Symptom Manage 1999; 17(2): 114–119.
    1. Czaja R. Questionnaire pre-testing comes of age. Market Bullet 1998; 9: 52–66.
    1. Tourangeau R. Cognitive sciences and survey methods. In: Jabine T, Straf M, Tanur J, et al. (eds) Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: building a bridge between disciplines. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1984, pp. 73–100.
    1. Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311: 376–380.
    1. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ 2017; 358: j3452.
    1. Murtagh FEM, Addington-Hall JM, Higginson IJ. The value of cognitive interviewing techniques in palliative care research. Palliat Med 2007; 21(2): 87–93.
    1. Ahmed N, Bestall JC, Payne SA, et al. The use of cognitive interviewing methodology in the design and testing of a screening tool for supportive and palliative care needs. Support Care Cancer 2009; 17(6): 665–673.
    1. Lee J. Conducting cognitive interviews in cross-national settings. Assessment 2014; 21(2): 227–240.
    1. Schildmann EK, Groeneveld EI, Denzel J, et al. Discovering the hidden benefits of cognitive interviewing in two languages: the first phase of a validation study of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale. Palliat Med 2016; 30(6): 599–610.
    1. Wallen GR, Middleton KR, Rivera-Goba MV, et al. Validating English- and Spanish-language patient-reported outcome measures in underserved patients with rheumatic disease. Arthritis Res Ther 2011; 13(1): R1.
    1. Cottrell L, Duggleby W. The ‘good death’: an integrative literature review. Palliat Support Care 2016; 14: 686–712.
    1. Germain MJ, Cohen LM. Defining a good death (successful dying): literature review and a call for research and public dialogue. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2016; 24(10): 940–941.
    1. Hales S, Gagliese L, Nissim R, et al. Understanding bereaved caregiver evaluations of the quality of dying and death: an application of cognitive interviewing methodology to the Quality of Dying and Death Questionnaire. J Pain Symptom Manage 2012; 43(2): 195–204.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren