4.3 Article

Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Quality of Dying in Long-Term Care Scale (QoD-LTC) for Spanish Nursing Homes

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18105287

Keywords

terminal care; nursing homes; long-term care; palliative care; quality of health care; quality indicators

Funding

  1. Fundacion Publica Andaluza Progreso y Salud [AP-0105-2016]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study successfully adapted and validated the QoD-LTC scale to the Spanish context, showing acceptable reliability, internal consistency, and feasibility. The Spanish version consists of 11 items with a mean fill-in time of 180.62 seconds, and can be used as a quality indicator for assessing the psychosocial quality of dying in nursing homes.
Background: There is a need for instruments that can evaluate the psychosocial quality of dying in nursing homes. The aim of this study was to adapt and validate the Quality of Dying in Long-Term Care scale (QoD-LTC) to the Spanish context. Methods: Descriptive cross-sectional study. Fourteen nurses from 7 facilities in southern Spain assessed 153 residents who died in the centers; validity, reliability, and feasibility were evaluated. Results: The Spanish version consists of 11 items with acceptable reliability (alpha = 0.681). Three factors model was validated by principal components analysis. A mean of 180.62 (SD = 86.66) seconds is needed to fill it in. An inter-observer 0.753 (95% CI: 0.391-0.900, p< 0.001) and intra-observer 0.855 (95% CI: 0.568-0.951 p = 0.001) reliability were observed. Weak correlation was observed; positive with mono-item question (0.322) and negative with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) with a value of (-0.321) and Integrated Palliative outcome scale (IPOS) with a value of (-0.252). Conclusions: The QoD-LTC scale presents an adequate factorial structure, internal consistency, and feasibility to evaluate psychosocial quality of dying in nursing homes. It can be used as a quality indicator.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available