Assessment tools for end of life care

Beck Depression Inventory BDI A item multiple choice test used for assessing the presence and degree of depression in adolescents and adults. The BDI is copyrighted, and may not be reproduced here. The DS has proved to be a sensitive and specific screening test for dementia.

Caregiver Strain Index A tool that measures strain related to care provision. Used to assess individuals who have assumed the role of caregiver for an older adult. Geriatric Depression Scale long form A item screening tool for symptoms of depression in the elderly. Geriatric Depression Scale short form A item screening tool for symptoms of depression in the elderly.

Hamilton Depression Scale Provides an indication of depression and, over time, provides a guide to progress. Herth Hope Index A item interview containing three dimensions: temporality and future, positive readiness and expectance, and interconnectedness.

Tested in community and hospital patients and family members. Please contact the author for permission to use this tool. If you have not already established a qualification level with PAR, please complete the Qualification Form for Medical and Allied Health Professionals and return it with your first order.

Mini Mental State Questionnaire A screening tool for assessing cognitive impairment. Scales of Psychological Well-Being Self-report scales to assess an individual's well-being at a particular moment in time within each of the following 6 dimensions: autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, self-acceptance.

Prolonged Grief—12 PG Prolonged Grief—13 PG Domain 8. Ethical and Legal Relatives' patient management questionnaire Multidimensional Tools Quality of Life Demoralization Scale DS Emanuel and Emanuel Medical Directive Patient Experience Family Assessment of Treatment of End-of-Life survey Family Evaluation of Hospice Care Family Satisfaction in the ICU Quality of Dying and Death Copyright Notice.

In this Page. Other titles in these collections. Recent Activity. Clear Turn Off Turn On. Support Center Support Center. External link. Please review our privacy policy. If we do not identify a systematic review for a particular domain,, we will seek information on assessment tools first from a grey literature unpublished compilations or databases of published information on tools search, and then, where needed, through a targeted search of PubMed.

There is extensive recent systematic review literature in palliative care including many published in as well as several up-to-date grey literature compendia and databases. In addition, newly-published tools that have not been widely available for use are not relevant for answering the guiding questions, and data on validity and reliability are almost always published only in the original publication about a tool.

In order to determine which National Consensus Project Clinical Practice Guidelines for Palliative Care domains are covered by recent published systematic reviews of the literature, we need to comprehensively identify, and map existing reviews. We will follow Evidence-based Practice Center guidance for use of existing systematic reviews 21 and will assess the quality of recent relevant last 10 years systematic reviews for quality using the ROBIS tool.

Based on our quality assessment, and the relevance, recency, and availability of evidence tables with relevant information, we will choose systematic reviews and classify these by the domains covered Figure 1. We will use the details about the assessment tools abstracted in these reviews. For National Consensus Project Clinical Practice Guidelines for Palliative domains where there are not recent last 3 years systematic reviews, we will use targeted grey literature searching see Figure 1 for algorithm to identify grey literature sites that compile information about assessment tools.

After the above steps, if there are any National Consensus Project Clinical Practice Guidelines for Palliative domains that are not covered by either systematic reviews or the grey literature, we will conduct a targeted search of PubMed to identify tools in these domains using key words for those domains added to our palliative care search in Section A above.

We will use the same inclusion criteria as described for systematic reviews in Table 1 except that we would include only published articles that describe the psychometrics of assessment tools developed for or tested in palliative care populations.

Given that the last comprehensive systematic review of assessment tools across domains searched through February , we would begin our search in February to provide one year of overlap with the prior review. We will supplement the information from the published and grey literature searches with key informant interviews, focusing on perspectives and issues not available from existing sources.

In the interviews, we will address what these tools should include and do and where to look for studies. We will then compare this information to the current research that exists on tools to identify gaps and issues for future research.

We will conduct interviews in one or two small groups, with a separate call for caregiver advocates to maximize their input.

We will adhere to all Office of Management and Budget requirements in limiting the informants asked the same questions to no more than 9 participants. We will document interviews and submit to the Task Order Officer.

Key Informants include leading palliative care researchers and quality experts applying tools in relevant populations and settings including the intensive care unit, oncology, pediatrics, heart failure, geriatrics and bereavement. The Key Informants have extensive experience in diverse aspects of tool development, application, and reviews, ranging from patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes to quality indicators and patient experience.

Discussions with key informants will address palliative care across diverse domains, settings, and populations. For researchers and providers, interviews will focus on identifying key issues and research gaps in use of assessment tools for palliative care clinical care, quality indicators, and evaluation of interventions.

Online tools are also available to help meet this requirement. The Daffodil Standards are a blend of quality statements, evidence-based tools, reflective learning exercises and quality improvement steps. The Standards offer a structure, enabling practices to be proactive organisations in which continuous learning and quality improvement steps are an integral part of caring for people affected by Advanced Serious Illness and End of Life Care.

The Daffodil Standards can be accessed for free at: www. By signing up to the Daffodil Standards, your practice has taken an important step towards improving end of life care. Practices can register now to receive a welcome pack.

Your Daffodil Standards welcome pack will include notebooks, pens, posters and leaflets for you and your team, as well as the Daffodil Mark, which can be displayed to highlight the practice's commitment to excellent end of life care and support for people with advanced serious illness.

The current guidelines make the dying person the focus of care in the last few days and hours of life and exemplify the high-level outcomes that must be delivered for every dying person. The way in which care varies is relative to the holistic needs of the individual, and the setting in which they are being cared for. Developed in partnership with the Clinical Innovation and Research Centre, the guidance and resources within the Palliative and End of Life Care toolkit reflect current guidelines, and provide a toolkit that general practitioners may refer to when working with a patient who is nearing the end of their life.

The toolkit will be updated on a regular basis. Please send any comments or suggestions to clinicalquality rcgp. Close This site uses cookies. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more.