Measuring Family Members’ Satisfaction with End-of-Life Care in Long-Term Care: Adaptation of the CANHELP Lite Questionnaire

Table 4

Mean, standard deviations, response range, and proportion of do not know/no basis to judge endorsement for each item on the revised questionnaire.

	Importance scale			Satisfaction scale			% DK/NB
	Mean	SD		Mean	SD
(1) Staff are compassionate/supportive of resident	4.93	.28	3–5	4.41	.74	1–5	—
(2) Staff are compassionate/supportive of family member	4.13	.91	1–5	4.40	.72	2–5	1.5
(3) Tests/treatments are given in the LTC home	4.69	.52	3–5	4.47	.77	1–5	2.2
(4) Physical symptoms adequately assessed/managed	4.88	.35	3–5	4.40	.85	1–5	4.5
(5) Emotional problems adequately assessed/controlled	4.77	.49	3–5	4.26	.93	1–5	5.2
(6) Help with personal care when needed	4.90	.33	3–5	4.41	.79	2–5	—
(7) Care received when family not there	4.87	.38	3–5	4.37	.77	1–5	3.7
(8) Health care workers work as a team	4.81	.40	4-5	4.44	.72	1–5	4.5
(9) Management of financial costs	4.54	.68	2–5	4.41	.86	1–5	.7
(10) Environment is calm and restful	4.60	.60	3–5	4.35	.81	1–5	—
(11) The care/treatment is consistent with wishes	4.61	.67	1–5	4.34	.80	1–5	6.0
(12) Staff communicate to you straightforwardly/honestly	4.80	.55	1–5	4.55	.78	1–5	1.5
(13) Receive consistent information about resident’s condition	4.74	.61	1–5	4.35	.88	1–5	2.2
(14) The LTC staff listen to what you say	4.77	.51	2–5	4.40	.83	2–5	1.5
(15) Discuss options about hospital transfer with the staff	4.64	.75	1–5	4.46	.87	1–5	17.9
(16) LTC home doctor takes a personal interest in relative	4.62	.70	1–5	4.07	.96	1–5	9.0
(17) LTC home doctor available when needed	4.57	.76	1–5	3.91	1.04	1–5	15.7
(18) Trust and confidence in the doctor	4.77	.52	2–5	4.10	1.02	1–5	6.7
(19) Discuss options with staff about life sustaining technologies	4.55	.87	1–5	4.45	.88	1–5	21.6
(20) You discuss palliative/comfort care measures with staff	4.67	.66	1–5	4.51	.68	2–5	33.6
(21) Your role in decision-making about medical care LTC home	4.74	.63	1–5	4.55	.71	2–5	7.5
(22) Discuss options with staff about relative’s EOLC wishes	4.59	.83	1–5	4.56	.67	2–5	32.1

are abbreviated; full wording can be seen in Figure 1. range potentials were 1–5 for the importance scale and 1–5 for satisfaction scale with an additional option to select “do not know/no basis to judge.” Values in the table are the observed ranges for each item. K/NBJ: do not know/no basis to judge response option.