This measure is cited as being the most widely used measure of care transition quality (Coleman et al. 2002) .The 4 CTM domains, which derived from patient focus groups, are: (1) Information transfer, (2) Patient and Caregiver Preparation, (3) Support for Self-Management, and (4) Empowerment to Assert Preferences. A shorter version of the measure is available that only has 3 items. The measure provides good coverage of a variety of aspects of person-centredness, with the exception of single point of contact/key worker and therapeutic relationship. However, poor psychometric properties have been reported. An independent evaluation revealed that the CTM-15 had good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.95) but demonstrated acquiescence bias (8.7% participants responded Strongly agree and 19% responded Agree to all items) and limited score variability (Anatchkova et al. 2014).
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.
Communication (information transfer), patient and caregiver preparation, self-management, and empowerment.
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”.
The person that fills in the questionnaire - e.g. patient, Health Care Professional, or proxy (normally a carer or family member)
Whether the measure is free to use without major restrictions, or instead permission and/or licensing fees are required. E.g. if "Yes", you should seek authorisation/permission prior to using the instrument.
The measures can be either generic or disease specific (e.g. Diabetes, Heart Failure)
Main context tested in
The main context in which the measure has been developed and used (E.g. Hopital, General Practice etc).
Main countries used in
The main countries in which the measure has been developed and used.
e.g. Adults, Children, Elderly
Adults and older people.
Main uses of measure
The context in which the measure is most often used – e.g. clinical trials; national surveys.
To evaluate the essential processes of care involved in successful care transitions, including information transfer, patient and caregiver preparation, self-management support, empowerment to assert preferences, from a patient-centered perspective
Used in UK?
Whether the instrument has been tested and validated within a UK healthcare context.
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.
Spanish, Arabic, Hebrew, and Russian
Other versions available
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.
Information Transfer, Patient and Caregiver Preparation, Support for Self-Management, and Empowerment to Assert Preferences.
Care coordination within teams
Generic care planning
Continuity of care
Shared decision making
A brief description of the initially reported psychometric properties of the measure.
An independent evaluation revealed that the CTM-15 had good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.95) but demonstrated acquiescence bias (8.7% participants responded Strongly agree and 19% responded Agree to all items) and limited score variability (Anatchkova et al. 2014).