Oncology Patients' Perceptions of the Quality of Nusing Care Scale
Basic Information
Detailed Information
Domains
Psychometrics
Basic Information
Abbreviated name
OPPQNCS
Full name
Oncology Patients' Perceptions of the Quality of Nusing Care Scale
Items
?
The number of questions in the survey
18
Short description
The OPPQNCS measures the quality of cancer nursing care from the patients perspective. Long (40 items) and Short form (18 item) versions are available. The long form may be especially useful for quality improvement purposes; the short form may be useful when respondent burden is a concern. The OPPQNCS can be used in studies designed to examine relations among cancer patients perceptions of care quality, health care system characteristics (e.g., nurse staffing), patient characteristics (e.g., race, gender), and nurse sensitive patient outcomes (e.g., health related quality of life; psychological sense of well-being).
PCCC or QoL?
?
This compendium contains patient-reported measures that are either designed to specifically measure aspects of Person Centred Co-Ordinated Care (P3C), or alternatively tools that are designed to measure some aspect of Quality of Life (QoL) or Health Related Quality of Life (hrQoL). All the measures in this compendium have been broadly categorised into one of those two concepts.
Person Centred Coordinated Care
Main Domains Measured
?
This is the key domains that the measure is targeting.
Quality of nursing care, patient outcomes
Type of measure
?
The measures in this compendium can take a variety of forms. Generally, they will be either Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) or Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM). However, we have also included a few measures that are completed by proxy-individual (PROXY), which are useful in instances where the respondent cannot answer directly (e.g. dementia or end of life). Sometimes, these measures can even be a composite of these types, and target both experiences and outcomes – we have labelled these measures “PROEMs”.
PREM
Respondent
?
The person that fills in the questionnaire - e.g. patient, Health Care Professional, or proxy (normally a carer or family member)
The measures can be either generic or disease specific (e.g. Diabetes, Heart Failure)
Cancer
Main context tested in
?
The main context in which the measure has been developed and used (E.g. Hopital, General Practice etc).
Nursing care
Main countries used in
?
The main countries in which the measure has been developed and used.
US, Greece, Finland
Target age
?
e.g. Adults, Children, Elderly
Adults
Main uses of measure
?
The context in which the measure is most often used – e.g. clinical trials; national surveys.
Monitor and improve the quality of patient-centered cancer nursing care and to investigate relations among care quality and healthcare system characteristics, patient characteristics, and nurse sensitive patient outcomes.
Used in UK?
?
Whether the instrument has been tested and validated within a UK healthcare context.
No
Impact
?
A crude indication of the impact of the measure on academia. This is the number of times the original publication has been cited on PubMed, divided/normalised to the years since publication.
0.538461538
Language
English
Official translations
Finnish
Flesch-Kincaid readability tests
?
A rating that corresponds approximately to US school grade level. For example, a score of 8.0 means that an eighth grader can understand the document. Generally, a score of 7 or 8 should be appropriate.
4.1
Domains
Domain description
Quality of nursing care
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1
1
3
2
1
1
6
5
1
Empowerment/activation
Case manager/key person
Single point of contact
Care coordination within teams
Continuity of care
Shared decision making
Behaviour and communication skills
Information sharing
Knowledge of patient
Psychometrics
Brief description
?
A brief description of the initially reported psychometric properties of the measure.
The 18-item short form was created using stepwise regression. Coefficient alpha of the total 18 item short form was 0.97; 0.95 for the responsiveness subscale (5 items); 0.93 for the individualization subscale (5 items), 0.87 for the coordination subscale (3 items); and 0.95 for the proficiency subscale (5 items).