ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is an increasing requirement to assess outcomes, but few measures have been tested for advanced medical illness. We aimed to test the validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Palliative care Outcome Scale (POS), and to analyse predictors of change after the transition to palliative care. METHODS: Phase 1: multicentre, mixed method study comprising cognitive and qualitative interviews with patients and staff, cultural refinement and adaption. Phase 2: consecutive cancer patients on admission to 8 inpatient hospices and 7 home-based teams were asked to complete the POS, the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACIT-Sp (T0), to assess internal consistency, convergent and divergent validity. After 6 days (T1) patients and staff completed the POS to assess responsiveness to change (T1-T0), and agreement between self-assessed POS and POS completed by the staff. Finally, we asked hospices an assessment 24-48 h after T1 to assess its reliability (test re-test analysis). RESULTS: Phase I: 209 completed POS questionnaires and 29 cognitive interviews were assessed, revisions made and one item substituted. Phase II: 295 consecutive patients admitted to 15 PCTs were approached, 175 (59.3 %) were eligible, and 150 (85.7 %) consented. Consent was limited by the severity of illness in 40 % patients. We found good convergent validity, with strong and moderate correlations (r ranged 0.5-0.8) between similar items from the POS, the QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACIT-Sp. As hypothesised, the physical function subscale of QLQ-C15-PAL was not correlated with any POS item (r ranged -0.16-0.02). We found acceptable to good test re-test reliability in both versions for 6 items. We found significant clinical improvements during the first week of palliative care in 7/10 items assessed-pain, other symptoms, patient and family anxiety, information, feeling at peace and wasted time. CONCLUSIONS: Both the patient self-assessed and professional POS versions are valid and with an acceptable internal consistency. POS detected significant clinical improvements during palliative care, at a time when patients are usually expected to deteriorate. These results suggest that there is room for substantial improvement in the management of patients with advanced disease, across all key domains-symptoms, psychological, information, social and spiritual.
Subject(s)
Behavior Rating Scale/standards , Language , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Palliative Care/psychology , Reproducibility of Results , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/psychology , Quality of Life , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to clarify the differential contributions of situational and individual factors to burnout symptoms experienced by two independent groups of specialist oncology nurses working in oncology hospital units or in hospices. METHOD: The study involved a group of specialist oncology nurses working in hospital oncology units (n = 59) and a group of specialist oncology nurses working in hospices (n = 33). Participants were invited to provide demographic data, and indicate the clinical setting in which they worked and their work experience; the Italian versions of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) (a measure of burnout symptoms), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) (a measure of anxiety and depression), and the Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ) (a measure of relational style) were then administered. RESULTS: The two groups of nurses were well matched for age, work experience, and levels of anxiety and depression. Regarding their relational style, the two groups only differed significantly on two subscales of the ASQ (i.e. "Confidence" and "Relationships as Secondary"). The two groups significantly differed in the levels of all burnout symptoms investigated (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal achievement), with nurses working in hospital units showing higher levels of burnout symptoms. Interestingly, multivariate regression analyses showed that the institutional factor (clinical setting in which nurses worked) clearly emerged as the only factor that influenced the level of all burnout symptoms, whereas the contribution of individual factors was less significant. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: These findings help to clarify the differential contributions of institutional and individual factors to burnout symptoms in specialist oncology nurses, and corroborate the need for interventions to contain nurses' burnout symptoms.
