Scores & Instruments ×
Show more Keywords
Table of contents
  1. 1. Clinical Trial
  2. 2. Routine Documentation
  3. 3. Registry/Cohort Study
  4. 4. Quality Assurance
  5. 5. Data Standard
  6. 6. Patient-Reported Outcome
  7. 7. Medical Specialty
Selected data models

You must log in to select data models for download or further analysis.

- 4/30/20 - 1 form, 8 itemgroups, 46 items, 1 language
Itemgroups: Administrative Data, Demographic factors, Baseline health status, Prior Treatments, TREATMENT VARIABLES, Acute complications of treatment, Major surgery complications, Major interventional cardiology complications
CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE DATA COLLECTION Version 2.0.3 Revised: April 5th, 2017 International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), Source: Notice: This work was conducted using resources from ICHOM, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement ( The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of ICHOM. Conditions: Asymptomatic Coronary Artery Disease | Stable Angina | Acute Coronary Syndrome (Includes AMI) Treatment Approaches: Lifestyle Modification | Drug Therapy | Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) | Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) This form contains peri-interventional clinical items. The items cover a timespan from prior to the intervention (e.g. PCI or CABG) until 30 days after it. They should be assessed at the entry event and at any new index event (e.g. new revascularization procedure or new diagnosis of ACS). Questionnaires used in this standard set: Rose Dyspnea Scale: The Rose Dyspnea Scale is free for all health care organizations, and a license is not needed. More information may be found at Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2): The PHQ-2 is free for all health care organizations, and a license is not needed. Copyright Pfizer, more Information on Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7): Due to the need for a license for use of the SAQ-7 the actual questions of SAQ-7 will not be part of this version of the standard set. Publication: McNamara RL, Spatz ES, Kelley TA, et al. Standardized Outcome Measurement for Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Consensus From the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM). J Am Heart Assoc. 2015;4(5):e001767. Published 2015 May 19. doi:10.1161/JAHA.115.001767 For this version of the standard set, semantic annotation with UMLS CUIs has been added.
- 11/28/17 - 1 form, 10 itemgroups, 30 items, 7 languages
Itemgroups: Alternating Trail Making, Visuoconstructional Skills, Naming, Memory, Attention, Language, Abstraction, Delayed Recall, Orientation, MoCA
- 7/10/17 - 1 form, 1 itemgroup, 16 items, 2 languages
Itemgroup: openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.paced_auditory_serial_addition_test.v1.xml
- 6/30/20 - 1 form, 16 itemgroups, 60 items, 1 language
Itemgroups: Caregiver Burden Scale, Transportation, Housekeeping, Cooking, Shopping, Decision Making, Financial Record Keeping, Walking, Making House Repairs, Farming/Yard Work, Administering Medication, Dressing, Bathing, Eating, Toileting, Leaving Patient Unattended
Macera, C.A., Eaker, E.D., Jannarone, R.J., Davis, D.R., Stoskopf, C.H.. (1993). Caregiver Burden Scale. Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Science. Retrieved 30/06/2020, from Key references: Macera, C.A., Eaker, E.D., Jannarone, R.J., Davis, D.R., Stoskopf, C.H., 1993. A Measure of Perceived Burden among Caregivers. Evaluation & the Health Professions 16 (2), 204–211. Primary use / Purpose: To assess perceived burden among people caring for others with disabilities. Background: This caregiver burden scale was developed to assess perceived burden among caregivers of family members with dementia. While everyone who is a caregiver will assist with tasks for their family member with dementia, our previous research found that burden was more than just the number or type of tasks for which the patient required assistance. By obtaining a measure of the caregivers' perceived burden associated with each of 15 possible tasks, we were able to narrow down the source of stress in a way that could lead to effective interventions. Psychometrics: Internal consistency of the scale: 0.87 Correlation with depressive symptoms (CES-D): 0.38 (p<0.001). Scoring Three domains are measured from this scale. The first one, defined as patient needs, is a sum of the 15 items providing a range of 0-15. The second one, defined as caregiver tasks, is the sum of the tasks for which the caregiver provided assistance. The range could be 0-15, but cannot be higher than the sum of the patient needs. The third domain, caregiver burden, is a sum of the items for which the patient needed assistance AND the caregiver provided assistance AND the caregiver reported that providing this assistance was stressful. The possible range was 0-15 but could not be higher than the number of caregiver tasks. Digital Object Identifier (DOI):
- 6/30/20 - 1 form, 2 itemgroups, 37 items, 1 language
Itemgroups: Administrative documentation, CAREGIVER QUALITY OF LIFE- CANCER
M. A. Weitzner, P. B. Jacobsen, H. Wagner Jr., J. Friedland, C. Cox. (1996). The Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer (CQOLC) scale. Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Science. Retrieved 30.06.2020, from Key references: McMillan, S. C. (1996). Quality of life of primary caregivers of hospice patients with cancer. Cancer Pract;4:191-8. Weitzner, M. A., Jacobsen, P. B., Wagner, H., Friedland, J., & Cox, C. (1999). The Caregiver Quality of Life Index–Cancer (CQOLC) Scale: development and validation of an instrument to measure quality of life of the family caregiver of patients with cancer. Quality of Life Research, 8, 55–63. Zarit, S. H., Reever, K. E., Bach-Peterson, J. (1980). Relatives of the impaired elderly: correlates of feeling of burden. Gerontologist;20:649 -55. Primary use / Purpose: The Caregiver Quality of Life Index- Cancer (CQOLC) scale is a 35-item cancer-specific instrument that assesses the carer of a cancer patient's quality of life, that is, some of the physical, social, emotional, and financial aspects of well-being, and functioning. Background: A panoply of instruments measuring caregiver burden have been developed since Zarit, Reever, and Bach-Peterson's (1980) pioneering study investigating carer strain using the Zarit Burden interview. Yet, a dearth of studies exist for parsing the physical, emotional, social and financial well-being of the carer. McMillan (1996) designed a valid and reliable caregiver quality of life index to study such constructs in the partner of the patient. Later, Weitzner and colleagues (1999) modified this scale to serve as a well-being outcome measure specifically for carers of cancer patients. Psychometrics: The CQOLC possesses acceptable validity, test-retest reliability and internal consistency (see Weitzner, Jacobsen, Wagner, Friedland, & Cox, 1999). Other Information: Scoring instructions: items 4, 10, 12, 16, 22, 27, 28 and 34 on questionnaire should be reversed scored. Digital Object Identifier (DOI):
- 6/26/20 - 1 form, 7 itemgroups, 18 items, 1 language
Itemgroups: Introduction, Team Identification, Leadership, Team Work, Task Management, Overall, Comments
Cooper S., Cant R., Porter J., Sellick K., Somers G., Kinsman L., Nestel D.. (2010). Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM). Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Science. Retrieved 26.06.2020, from Key references: Cooper S, Cant R, Porter J, Sellick K, Somers G, Kinsman L, Nestel D. Rating medical emergency team performance: development of the Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM). Resuscitation 2010: 81(4): 446-452. Primary use / Purpose: Evaluation of teamwork performance in medical emergencies- e.g., cardiac or other resuscitation teams. Background: This research developed a valid, reliable, and feasible teamwork assessment measure for emergency resuscitation team performance. Although generic and profession specific team performance assessment measures are available (e.g. anaesthetics) there are no specific measures for the assessment of emergency resuscitation team performance. METHODS:The instrument was developed and tested with senior nursing and medical students in the stages listed in the section below. Conclusion: The final 12 item (11 specific and 1 global rating) are rated using a five-point scale and cover three categories leadership, teamwork and task management. In this primary study, TEAM was found to be a valid and reliable instrument and should be a useful addition to clinicians’ tool set for the measurement of teamwork during medical emergencies. Further evaluation of the instrument is warranted to fully determine its psychometric properties. Psychometrics: DEVELOPMENT: (1) An extensive review of the literature for teamwork instruments; (2) development of a draft instrument with an expert clinical team; (3) Review by an international team of seven independent experts for face and content validity; (4) Instrument testing on 56 video-recorded hospital and simulated resuscitation events for construct, consistency, concurrent validity and reliability; and (5) a final set of ratings for feasibility on fifteen simulated ‘real time’ events. TESTING: Following expert review, selected items were found to have a high total content validity index of 0.96. A single ‘teamwork’ construct was identified with an internal consistency of 0.89. Correlation between the total item score and global rating (rho= 0.95; p < 0.01) indicated concurrent validity. Interrater (k= 0.55) and retest reliability (k= 0.53) were ‘fair’, with positive feasibility ratings following ‘real time’ testing. Other Information: Detailed web information on the the tool is available from Digital Object Identifier (DOI):