IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0066066.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Caregiver Evaluation of the Quality of End-Of-Life Care (CEQUEL) Scale: The Caregiver's Perception of Patient Care Near Death

Author

Listed:
  • Philip C Higgins
  • Holly G Prigerson

Abstract

Purpose: End-of-life (EOL) measures are limited in capturing caregiver assessment of the quality of EOL care. Because none include caregiver perception of patient suffering or prolongation of death, we sought to develop and validate the Caregiver Evaluation of Quality of End-of-Life Care (CEQUEL) scale to include these dimensions of caregiver-perceived quality of EOL care. Patients and Methods: Data were derived from Coping with Cancer (CwC), a multisite, prospective, longitudinal study of advanced cancer patients and their caregivers (N = 275 dyads). Caregivers were assessed before and after patient deaths. CEQUEL's factor structure was examined; reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's α, and convergent validity by the strength of associations between CEQUEL scores and key EOL outcomes. Results: Factor analysis revealed four distinct factors: Prolongation of Death, Perceived Suffering, Shared Decision-Making, and Preparation for the Death. Each item loaded strongly on only a single factor. The 13-item CEQUEL and its subscales showed moderate to acceptable Cronbach's α (range: 0.52–0.78). 53% of caregivers reported patients suffering more than expected. Higher CEQUEL scores were positively associated with therapeutic alliance (ρ = .13; p≤.05) and hospice enrollment (z = −2.09; p≤.05), and negatively associated with bereaved caregiver regret (ρ = −.36, p≤.001) and a diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (z = −2.06; p≤.05). Conclusion: CEQUEL is a brief, valid measure of quality of EOL care from the caregiver's perspective. It is the first scale to include perceived suffering and prolongation of death. If validated in future work, it may prove a useful quality indicator for the delivery of EOL care and a risk indicator for poor bereavement adjustment.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip C Higgins & Holly G Prigerson, 2013. "Caregiver Evaluation of the Quality of End-Of-Life Care (CEQUEL) Scale: The Caregiver's Perception of Patient Care Near Death," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-10, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0066066
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066066
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066066
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066066&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0066066?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hinton, John, 1996. "How reliable are relatives' retrospective reports of terminal illness? Patients' and relatives' accounts compared," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1229-1236, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brian Nkwinda & Wanda Jacobs & Charlene Downing, 2019. "Patient Satisfaction With Caring at a District Hospital in Malawi," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Stacey, Clare L. & Pai, Manacy & Novisky, Meghan A. & Radwany, Steven M., 2019. "Revisiting ‘awareness contexts’ in the 21st century hospital: How fragmented and specialized care shape patients' Awareness of Dying," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 212-218.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0066066. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.