Examining interrater agreement between self-report and proxy-report responses for the quality of life-aged care consumers (QOL-ACC) instrument

BACKGROUND

Quality of life is an important quality indicator for health and aged care sectors. However, self-reporting of quality of life is not always possible given the relatively high prevalence of cognitive impairment amongst older people, hence proxy reporting is often utilised as the default option. Internationally, there is little evidence on the impact of proxy perspective on interrater agreement between self and proxy report.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impacts of (i) cognition level and (ii) proxy perspective on interrater agreement using a utility instrument, the Quality of Life-Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC).

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was undertaken with aged care residents and family member proxies. Residents completed the self-report QOL-ACC, while proxies completed two proxy versions: proxy-proxy perspective (their own opinion), and proxy-person perspective (how they believe the resident would respond). Interrater agreement was assessed using quadratic weighted kappas for dimension-level data and concordance correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots for utility scores.

RESULTS

Sixty-three residents (22, no cognitive impairment; 41, mild-to-moderate cognitive impairment) and proxies participated. In the full sample and in the mild-to-moderate impairment group, the mean self-reported QOL-ACC utility score was significantly higher than the means reported by proxies, regardless of perspective (p < 0.01). Agreement with self-reported QOL-ACC utility scores was higher when proxies adopted a proxy-person perspective.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of cognition level and proxy perspective, proxies tend to rate quality of life lower than residents. Further research is needed to explore the impact of such divergences for quality assessment and economic evaluation in aged care.

Pain in older adults with dementia : A survey across Europe on current practices, use of assessment tools, guidelines and policies

BACKGROUND

We aimed to explore the existing use of pain assessment tools and guidelines, and develop understanding of the practical considerations required to facilitate their use within the nursing home, hospital and community settings.

METHODS

A self-administered web-based survey was conducted with nurses, health and social care workers with an interest in the assessment of pain in older adults with cognitive impairment. The survey was distributed to participants in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland and United Kingdom.

RESULTS

Only a minority of staff reported use of (inter-)national or local standards or specific pain assessment tools in daily practice. A range of tools were reported as being used, which varied across country. While participants generally reported that these pain assessment tools were easy/very easy to use, many participants reported that they were difficult to interpret. Assessment is generally performed whilst providing nursing care. This was highlighted in 70-80% of all participating countries. While many of these tools rely on facial expression of pain, facial expressions were considered to be the least useful in comparison to other items. Furthermore findings showed that nurses employed in long-term care settings did not feel that they were educated enough in pain assessment and management.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that pain education is required across all countries surveyed. This should include a focus on guidelines and standards for assessment and subsequent management of pain. Findings suggest that clinical staff find interpreting facial expressions in relation to pain more difficult.