Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T22:37:42.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying patients in need of palliative care: Adaptation of the Necesidades Paliativas CCOMS-ICO© (NECPAL) screening tool for use in Israel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2022

Galia Fisher Open the ORCID record for Galia Fisher [Opens in a new window] ,
Efrat Shadmi ,
Tammy Porat-Packer  and
Anna Zisberg
Galia Fisher*
Affiliation:
The Cheryl Spenser Department of Nursing, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel Research Department, Shoham Geriatric Medical Center, Pardes Hanna, Israel
Efrat Shadmi
Affiliation:
The Cheryl Spenser Department of Nursing, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Tammy Porat-Packer
Affiliation:
Research Department, Shoham Geriatric Medical Center, Pardes Hanna, Israel
Anna Zisberg
Affiliation:
The Cheryl Spenser Department of Nursing, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
*
Author for correspondence: Galia Fisher, Research Department, Shoham Geriatric Medical Center, HaNadiv 1, Pardes Hanna 3707101, Israel. Email: galiaf@shoham.health.gov.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

The Necesidades Paliativas CCOMS-ICO© (NECPAL) screening tool was developed to identify patients in need of palliative care and has been used in Israel without formal translation, reliability testing, or validation. Because cultural norms significantly affect subscales such as social vulnerability and health-care delivery, research is needed to comprehensively assess the NECPAL’s components, adapt it, and validate it for an Israeli health-care setting. This study linguistically and culturally translated the NECPAL into Hebrew to examine cultural and contextual acceptability for use in the Israeli geriatric health sector. The newly adapted tool was measured for itemized and scale-level content validity, inter-rater reliability (IRR), and construct validity.

Methods

The NECPAL was back-translated and its content validated by a 5-member expert panel for clarity and relevance, forming the Israeli-NECPAL (I-NECPAL). Six health-care professionals used the I-NECPAL with 25 post-acute geriatric patients to measure IRR. For construct validity, the known-groups method was used, as there is no “gold standard” method for identifying palliative needs for comparison with the NECPAL. The known groups were 2 fictitious cases, predetermined of palliative need. Thirty health-care professionals, blinded to the predetermined palliative status, used the I-NECPAL to determine whether a patient needs a palliative-centered plan of care.

Results

The findings point to acceptable content and construct validity as well as IRR of the I-NECPAL for potential inclusion as a tool for identifying geriatric patients in need of palliative care. Content-validity assessment brought linguistic changes and the exclusion of the frailty parameter from the annex of chronic diseases. The kappa-adjusted scale-level content-validity index indicated a high level of content validity (0.96). IRR indicated a high level of agreement (all parameters with an “excellent–good” agreement level). The sensitivity (0.93), specificity (0.17), positive predictive value (0.53), and negative predictive value (0.71) revealed how heavily the scale weighed upon the surprise question. These metrics are improved when removing the surprise question from the instrument.

Significance of results

Similar to other countries, the Israeli health-care system is regulated by policies that portray the local beliefs and culture as well as evidence-based practice. The decision about when to switch a patient to a palliative-centered plan of care is one such example. It is thus of utmost importance that only locally adapted and vigorously tested screening tools be offered to health-care providers to assist in this decision. The I-NECPAL is the first psychometrically tested palliative needs identification tool for use in the geriatric population in Israel, on both a scale and an itemized level. The results indicate that it can immediately replace the current unvalidated version in use. Further research is needed to determine whether all parts of the scale are relevant for this patient population.

Keywords

Instrument translation and validationPalliative carePsychometric testingHebrewScreening tool
Type
Original Article
Information
Palliative & Supportive Care , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , February 2024 , pp. 103 - 109
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, LA, Matlock, DD, Shetterly, SM, et al. (2019) Use of risk models to predict death in the next year among individual ambulatory patients with heart failure. Journal of the American Medical Association Cardiology 2(4), 435–441. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2016.5036Google Scholar
Amblàs-Novellas, J, Murray, SA, Espaulella, J, et al. (2016) Identifying patients with advanced chronic conditions for a progressive palliative care approach: A cross-sectional study of prognostic indicators related to end-of-life trajectories. BMJ Open 6, 1–10. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012340CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arbelle, JE, Chodick, G, Goldstein, A, et al. (2014) Multiple chronic disorders: Health care system’s modern challenge in the Maccabi Health Care System. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research 3(1), 1–8. doi:10.1186/2045-4015-3-29CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckley, J (2008) Palliative Care: An Integrated Approach. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bujang, MA and Baharum, N (2017) Guidelines of the minimum sample size requirements for Cohen’s Kappa. Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health 14(2), -1–e12267-10. doi:10.2427/12267Google Scholar
Calderón-Larrañaga, A, Poblador-Plou, B, González-Rubio, F, et al. (2012) Multimorbidity, polypharmacy, referrals, and adverse drug events: Are we doing things well? British Journal of General Practice 62(605), 821–826. doi:10.3399/bjgp12X659295CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calsina-Berna, A, Martínez-Muñoz, M, Bardes Robles, I, et al. (2018) Intrahospital mortality and survival of patients with advanced chronic illnesses in a tertiary hospital identified with the NECPAL CCOMS-ICO tool. Journal of Palliative Medicine 21(5), 665–673. doi:10.1089/jpm.2017.0339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, DV and Sparrow, SA (1981) Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 86(2), 127–137.Google ScholarPubMed
Dharmarajan, K, Wang, Y, Lin, Z, et al. (2017) Association of changing hospital readmission rates with mortality rates after hospital discharge. Journal of the American Medical Association 318(3), 270–278. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.8444CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Downar, J, Goldman, R, Pinto, R, et al. (2017) The “surprise question” for predicting death in seriously ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Medical Association Journal 189(13), E484–E493. doi:10.1503/cmaj.160775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faul, F, Erdfelder, E, Buchner, A, et al. (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods 41(4), 1149–1160. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleiss, JL, Levin, B and Paik, MC (1981) The measurement of interrater agreement. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions 2, 212–236.Google Scholar
Fortin, M, Soubhi, H, Bayliss, E, et al. (2007) Mutimorbidity’s many challenges. British Medical Journal 334(7602), 1016–1017. doi:10.1136/bmj.39201.463819.2CCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, E, Landrum-mcniff, K, Dawson, NV, et al. (1999) Evaluation of prognostic criteria for determining hospice eligibility. Journal of the American Medical Association 282(17), 1638–1645. doi:10.1001/jama.282.17.1638CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gómez-Batiste, X, Amblàs, J, Costa, X, et al. (2017a) Recommendations for the Comprehensive and Integrated Care of Persons With Advanced Chronic Conditions and Life-Limited Prognosis in Health and Social Services: NECPAL CCOMS-ICO© 3.1 (2017). Catalan Institute of Oncology. https://ico.gencat.cat/ca/professionals/serveis_i_programes/observatori_qualy/eines_de_suport/eines/instrument_i_programa/.Google Scholar
Gómez-Batiste, X, Martínez-Muñoz, M, Blay, C, et al. (2013) Identificacion de personas con enfermedades crónicas avanzadas y necesidad de atencion paliativa en servicios sanitarios y sociales: Elaboración del de atencio instrumento NECPAL CCOMS-ICO. Medicina Clínica (Barcelona) 140(6), 241–245. doi:10.1016/j.medcli.2012.06.027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez-Batiste, X, Turrillas, P, Tebé, C, et al. (2020) NECPAL tool prognostication in advanced chronic illness: A rapid review and expert consensus. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, 1–11. doi:10.1136/bmjspcare-2019-002126Google ScholarPubMed
Highet, G, Crawford, D, Murray, SA, et al. (2014) Development and evaluation of the supportive and palliative care indicators tool (SPICT): A mixed-methods study. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care 4(3), 285–290. doi:10.1136/bmjspcare-2013-000488CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hong, H, Choi, Y, Hahn, S, et al. (2014) Nomogram for sample size calculation on a straightforward basis for the kappa statistic. Annals of Epidemiology 24(9), 673–680. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.06.097CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hui, D, Paiva, CE, Del Fabbro, EG, et al. (2019) Prognostication in advanced cancer: Update and directions for future research. Supportive Care in Cancer 27(6), 1973–1984. doi:10.1007/s00520-019-04727-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karnofsky, DA (1949) The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In MacLeod, CM (ed), Evaluation of Chemotherapeutic Agents. New York: Columbia University Press, 191–205.Google Scholar
King, N, Thomas, K, Martin, N, et al. (2005) “Now nobody falls through the net”: Practitioners’ perspectives on the Gold Standards Framework for community palliative care. Palliative Medicine 19(8), 619–627. doi:10.1191/0269216305pm1084oaCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavan, AH, Gallagher, P and O’Mahony, D (2018) Inter-rater reliability of STOPPFrail [Screening Tool of Older Persons Prescriptions in Frail adults with limited life expectancy] criteria amongst 12 physicians. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 74, 331–338. doi:10.1007/s00228-017-2376-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linsell, L, Forbes, LJL, Burgess, C, et al. (2010) Validation of a measurement tool to assess awareness of breast cancer. European Journal of Cancer 46(8), 1374–1381. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.034CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynn, MR (1986) Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research 35(6), 382–386. doi:10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynn, J, Schall, MW, Milne, C, et al. (2000) Quality improvements in end of life care: Insights from two collaboratives. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement 26(5), 254–267. doi:10.1016/S1070-3241(00)26020-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahoney, FI and Barthel, DW (1965) Functional evaluation: The Barthel index. Maryland State Medical Journal 14, 61–65.Google ScholarPubMed
Myers, J, Gardiner, K, Harris, K, et al. (2010) Evaluating correlation and interrater reliability for four performance scales in the palliative care setting. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 39(2), 250–258. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.06.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Hospice Organization (1996) Medical guidelines for determining prognosis in selected non-cancer diseases. The Hospice Journal 11(2), 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, BP, Flores, TR, Mielke, GI, et al. (2016) Multimorbidity and mortality in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 67, 130–138. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2016.07.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ofori-Asenso, R, Chin, KL, Curtis, AJ, et al. (2019) Recent patterns of multimorbidity among older adults in high-income countries. Population Health Management 22(2), 127–137. doi:10.1089/pop.2018.0069CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orzechowski, R, Galvão, AL, Nunes, TDS, et al. (2019) Palliative care need in patients with advanced heart failure hospitalized in a tertiary hospital. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP 53, . doi:10.1590/S1980-220X2018015403413CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinke, LF, Vig, EK, Tartaglione, EV, et al. (2019) Symptom burden and palliative care needs among high-risk veterans with multimorbidity. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 57(5), 880–889. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.02.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roversi, S, Fabbri, LM, Sin, DD, et al. (2016) Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiac diseases an urgent need for integrated care. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 194(11), 1319–1336. doi:10.1164/rccm.201604-0690SOCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santana, MTEA, Gómez-Batiste, X, da Silva, LMG, et al. (2020) Cross-cultural adaptation and semantic validation of an instrument to identify palliative requirements in Portuguese. Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 18, . doi:10.31744/einstein_journal/2020AO5539Google ScholarPubMed
Shipman, C, Gysels, M, White, P, et al. (2008) Improving generalist end of life care: National consultation with practitioners, commissioners, academics, and service. BMJ 337(a1720), 1–8. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1720CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sim, J and Wright, CC (2005) The Kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy 85(3), 257–268. doi:10.1093/ptj/85.3.257CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Troncoso, J, Morales-Meyer, T, Villarroel, L, et al. (2021) Adaptation and validation in Chile of the patient identification instrument needing palliative care: NECPAL-CCOMS-ICO 3.1©. Atencion Primaria 53(4), 101994. doi:10.1016/j.aprim.2021.101994CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turrillas, P, Peñafiel, J, Tebé, C, et al. (2021) NECPAL prognostic tool: A palliative medicine retrospective cohort study. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, 1–10. doi:10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002567Google Scholar
White, N, Kupeli, N, Vickerstaff, V, et al. (2017) How accurate is the “surprise question” at identifying patients at the end of life? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medicine 15(139), 1–14. doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0907-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, N, Reid, F, Harris, A, et al. (2016) A systematic review of predictions of survival in palliative care: How accurate are clinicians and who are the experts? PLoS One 11(8), 1–20. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161407CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (2010) Process of Translation and Adaptation of Instruments. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2020) Palliative care. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/palliative-care (accessed 8 November 2019).Google Scholar
Wynd, CA, Schmidt, B and Schaefer, MA (2003) Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. Western Journal of Nursing Research 25(5), 508–518. doi:10.1177/0193945903252998CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed