A Nationwide Survey of Quality of End-of-Life Cancer Care in Designated Cancer Centers, Inpatient Palliative Care Units, and Home Hospices in Japan: The J-HOPE Study

Miyashita, Mitsunori; Morita, Tatsuya; Sato, Kazuki; Tsuneto, Satoru; Shima, Yasuo

doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.01.007

Cited by 84 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 Patients with cancer who receive hospice care have reported reductions in pain intensity, 2 symptom burden, 3 and distress 3 and receive less burdensome aggressive care compared with patients not enrolled in hospice care. 7,8 Furthermore, caregivers of patients who receive hospice care have a lower risk of death in the 18 months after the patient's death than caregivers of patients who do not receive hospice care. 7,8 Furthermore, caregivers of patients who receive hospice care have a lower risk of death in the 18 months after the patient's death than caregivers of patients who do not receive hospice care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between advanced cancer patient‐caregiver agreement regarding prognosis and hospice enrollment

Trevino

Prigerson

Shen

et al. 2019

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced, incurable cancer who understand their illness is incurable are more likely to prefer hospice care at the end of life compared with patients who believe their illness is curable. To the authors' knowledge, it is unclear whether patient-caregiver agreement regarding perceived prognosis is associated with hospice enrollment. METHODS: The current study examined the prospective relationship between patient-caregiver agreement concerning perceived prognosis and hospice enrollment in the last 30 days of life. Data were collected during a cluster randomized controlled trial examining a communication intervention for oncologists and patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. At the time of study entry, patients and caregivers (141 dyads) were categorized as endorsing a "good" prognosis if they: 1) reported a >50% chance of surviving ≥2 years; or if they 2) predicted that the patient's quality of life 3 months into the future would be ≥7 on an 11-point scale. RESULTS: Approximately one-fifth of dyads agreed on a poor prognosis whereas approximately one-half disagreed regarding prognosis. In approximately one-third of dyads, patients and caregivers both believed the patient's future quality of life would be good (34%) and that the patient would live for ≥2 years (30%). Patients in these dyads were less likely to enroll in hospice compared with patients in dyads who disagreed and those who agreed on a shorter life expectancy and poor future quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Dyadic understanding of patients' projected life expectancy and future quality of life appears to be predictive of care received at the end of life. Improving rates of hospice enrollment may be best achieved with dyadic interventions. Cancer 2019;125:3259-3265.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between advanced cancer patient‐caregiver agreement regarding prognosis and hospice enrollment

Trevino

Prigerson

Shen

et al. 2019

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, our study sample may not be representative of the general population. It may be better to use descriptive statistics based on place of care because the quality of care in inpatient palliative care units and home hospices is more highly rated than general hospital wards in Japan [11]. Because of the possibility of a ceiling effect, an additional survey using a more representative sample might be necessary to confirm the factor structure and achieve high convergent validity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of these measures is the Care Evaluation Scale (CES), which was developed in 2004 to evaluate the palliative care structure and process [8]. The CES has been used in a number of nationwide surveys and clinical audits by institutions in Japan [9–11]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, we found a misresponse rate of 5–10% (unpublished data). Therefore, we referred to the overall satisfaction question in previous studies and manually corrected the inverse responses to reflect the inverse score [9–11]. However, this was not only time consuming, but also insufficient, because categorizing respondents who answer “somewhat satisfied” for the overall satisfaction question as satisfied or unsatisfied, which would be necessary to correct such CES1.0 responses, was not feasible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development the Care Evaluation Scale Version 2.0: a modified version of a measure for bereaved family members to evaluate the structure and process of palliative care for cancer patient

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Care Evaluation Scale (CES1.0) was designed to allow bereaved family members to evaluate the structure and process of care, but has been associated with a high frequency of misresponses. The objective of this study was to develop a modified version of CES1.0 (CES2.0) that would eliminate misresponses while maintaining good reliability and validity.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire survey by mail in October 2013. The participants were bereaved family members of patients who died from cancer in seven institutions in Japan. All family members were asked to complete CES2.0, the short form CES1.0, items on overall care satisfaction, the Family Satisfaction with Advanced Cancer Care (FAMCARE) Scale, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Brief Grief Questionnaire (BGQ). To examine test-retest reliability, all participants were asked to complete a second CES2.0.ResultsOf 596 questionnaires sent, 461 (77%) were returned and 393 (66%) were analyzed. In the short form CES1.0, 17.1% of the responses were identified as misresponses. No misresponses were found in CES2.0. We identified 10 CES2.0 subscales similar to those in CES1.0 using exploratory factor analysis. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.96, and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.83. Correlations were found between CES2.0 and overall satisfaction (r = 0.83) and FAMCARE (r = 0.58). In addition, total CES2.0 scores were negatively correlated with the PHQ-9 (r = −0.22) and BGQ (r = −0.10).ConclusionThese results suggest that CES2.0 eliminated misresponses associated with CES1.0 while maintaining good reliability and validity and greatly improving test-retest reliability.

show abstract

“…, Nanori Kuzuya 2, 3) , and Yasuyuki Sugiyama This study sought to determine whether the Japanese version of the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP-J) could improve nurses' practice in dying-phase and difficulties with palliative care in a general ward. Between July 2014 and June 2015, LCP-J intervention and educational program for nurse were introduced in a general ward.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcome evaluation of introducing the Japanese version of the Liverpool Care Pathway for patients with cancer in a general ward

貴昭

実央²,

命

et al. 2015

Palliat Care Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Nationwide Survey of Quality of End-of-Life Cancer Care in Designated Cancer Centers, Inpatient Palliative Care Units, and Home Hospices in Japan: The J-HOPE Study

Cited by 84 publications

References 26 publications

Association between advanced cancer patient‐caregiver agreement regarding prognosis and hospice enrollment

Association between advanced cancer patient‐caregiver agreement regarding prognosis and hospice enrollment

Development the Care Evaluation Scale Version 2.0: a modified version of a measure for bereaved family members to evaluate the structure and process of palliative care for cancer patient

Outcome evaluation of introducing the Japanese version of the Liverpool Care Pathway for patients with cancer in a general ward

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About