4.6 Article

Enhancing Communication in End-of-Life Care: A Clinical Tool Translating Between the Clinical Frailty Scale and the Palliative Performance Scale

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 62, 期 8, 页码 1562-1567

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.12926

关键词

geriatrics; palliative care; clinical tool; Clinical Frailty Scale; Palliative Performance Scale

资金

  1. Academic Health Sciences Centres Alternate Funding Plan Innovation Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: To create a clinical tool to translate between the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), which geriatrics teams use, and Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), which palliative care teams use, to create a common language and help improve communication between geriatric and palliative care teams. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTINGS: Two academic health centers: inpatient palliative care and chronic care units, an outpatient geriatric clinic, and inpatient referrals to a palliative care consultation service. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults (>= 65) aged 80.9 +/- 8.0, with malignant (51%) and nonmalignant (49%) terminal diagnoses (N = 120). MEASUREMENTS: Each participant was assigned four scores: a CFS score each from a geriatric physician and nurse and a PPS score each from a palliative care physician and nurse. Interrater reliability of each measure was calculated using kappa coefficients. For each measure, the mean of physician and nurse scores was used to calculate every possible combination of CFS and PPS scores to determine the combination with maximum agreement. RESULTS: Interrater reliability of each measure was very high for the CFS (weighted kappa = 0.92) and PPS (weighted kappa = 0.80). The CFS-PPS score matching that achieved maximum agreement (weighted kappa = 0.71) was used to create a conversion chart between the two measures. CONCLUSION: This conversion chart is a reliable means of translating scores between the CFS and PPS and is useful for geriatric and palliative care teams collaborating in the care of elderly adults.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据