A spiritual assessment assists the nurse in planning holistic nursing care. Whether the nurse is unclear about the patient's spiritual belief or the patient has a spiritual belief unfamiliar to the nurse, acronym models such as FICA provide the basis for an organized, open and non-biased assessment. Assessments, the spiritual assessment should be multidisciplinary. Physicians, therapists, nurses, and clinical pastoral staff should receive training on the value of spiritual assessment and the tools that should be used to assess a patient’s spirituality. Approaches to Determining Spiritual Assessment Content In designing a spiritual. Developing Spiritual Assessment Tools for Healthcare Professionals The Abstract We have created a spiritual assessment tool that will assist healthcare professionals of various disciplines in making a more effective, comprehensive and useful assessment of the spiritual resources available to the patient. SPIRITUAL CARE. IN ADVANCED PRACTICE NURSING. A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO. THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL. IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF. DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. PROGRAM IN NURSING. Vincensi Spiritual Assessment Tool (VSAT) and Vincensi Spiritual Care Intervention Tool (VSCIT). Content validity was completed.

• Spiritual Assessment Tool For Nursing
• Spiritual Needs Assessment Tool Nursing
• Simple Spiritual Assessment Tool For Men
• Spiritual Assessment Tools In Healthcare
• Spiritual Assessment Questions

1. Anandarajah, G., & Hight, E. 2001. Spirituality and Medical Practice: Using the HOPE Questions as a Practical Tool for Spiritual Assessment. American Family Physician, 63(1), 81–89.Google Scholar
2. Balboni, M. J. 2013. A Theological Assessment of Spiritual Assessments. Christian Bioethics 19(3), 313–331. Google Scholar
3. Bender, C. 2007. Religion and Spirituality: History, Discourse, Measurement. SSRC Forum. http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Bender.pdf
4. Bender, C. 2010. The New Metaphysicals: Spirituality and the American Religious Imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Berg, Gary E. 1994. The Use of the Computer as a Tool for Assessment and Research in Pastoral Care. Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy 6(1), 11–25. Google Scholar
6. Berger, P. 2015. The Hospital: On the Interface between Secularity and Religion. Society, 52(5) Sept/Oct.Google Scholar
7. Berggren-Thomas, P., & Griggs, M. J. 1995. Spirituality in aging: spiritual need or spiritual journey? Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 21(3), 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Bishop, J. 2013. Of Idolatries and Ersatz Liturgies: The False Gods of Spiritual Assessment. Christian Bioethics, 19(3), 332–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Cadge, W. 2012. Paging God: Religion in the Halls of Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Clark, D. 2007. From Margins to Centre: A Review of the History of Palliative Care in Cancer. Lancet Oncology, 8(5), 430–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Draper, P., & McSherry, W. 2002. A critical view of spirituality and spiritual assessment. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 39(1), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Fitchett, G. 1993a. Assessing Spiritual Needs: A Guideline for Caregivers. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publications. (Reprint edition Lima, Ohion: Academic Renewal Press, 2002).Google Scholar
13. Fitchett, G. 1993b. Spiritual Assessment in Pastoral Care: A Guide to Selected Resources. Decatur, GA: Journal of Pastoral Care Publications.Google Scholar
14. Fitchett, G. 2012. Next Steps for Spiritual Assessment in Healthcare. In M. Cobb, C. M. Puchlaski, & B. Rumbold (Eds.), Oxford Textbook of Spirituality in Healthcare (pp. 299–305). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Hay, M. W. 1989. Principles in building spiritual assessment tools. The American Journal of Hospice Care, 6(5), 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Hodge, D. R. 2001. Spiritual assessment: a review of major qualitative methods and a new framework for assessing spirituality. Social Work, 46(3), 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Hodge, D. R. 2013. Implicit spiritual assessment: an alternative approach for assessing client spirituality. Social Work, 58(3), 223–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Holland, E. 1985. The Art of Hospice Spiritual Care. In K. Gardner (Ed.), Quality Care for the Terminally Ill: An Examination of the Issues, Special issue of Quality Review Bulletin (pp. 136–140). Chicago: Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals.Google Scholar
19. Ironson, G., Solomon, G. F., Balbin, E. G., et al. 2002. The Ironson-Woods Spirituality/Religiousness Index is associated with long survival, health behaviors, less distress and low cortisol in people with HIV/AIDS. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 34e48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Kass, J. D., Friedman, R., Leserman, J., Zuttermeister, P. C., & Benson, H. 1991. Health Outcomes and a New Index of Spiritual Experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30(2), 203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Koenig, H. G. 2002. An 83 Year Old Woman with Chronic Illness and Strong Religious Beliefs. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(4), 487–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Kuhn, C. C. 1988. A Spiritual Inventory of the Medically Ill Patient. Psychiatric Medicine, 6(2), 87–100.Google Scholar
23. LaRocca-Pitts, M. 2008. FACT: Taking a Spiritual History in a Clinical Setting. Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy, 15, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Lewis, L. M. 2008. Spiritual Assessment in African-Americans: A Review of Measures of Spirituality Used in Health Research. Journal of Religion and Health, 47, 458–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Lo, B., Quill, T., & Tulsky, J. 1999. Discussing palliative care with patients. Annals of Internal Medicine, 130(9), 744–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Maugans, T. A. 1996. The SPIRITual History. Archives of Family Medicine, 5(1), 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Monod, S., Brennan, M., Rochat, E., Martin, E., Rochat, S., & Bula, C. J. 2011. Instruments measuring spirituality in clinical research: a systematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26(11), 1345–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Moore, R. J. 2003. Spiritual assessment. Social Work, 48(4), 558–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Muncy, J. F. 1996. Muncy comprehensive spiritual assessment. The American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Care, 13(5), 44–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Nash, R. 1990. Life’s Major Spiritual Issues. The Care Giver Journal, 7(1), 3–42.Google Scholar
31. Newshan, G. 1998. Transcending the physical: spiritual aspects of pain in patients with HIV and/or cancer. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(6), 1236–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. O’Connor, T. S. J., O’Neill, K., Penner, C., Van Staalduinen, G., Meakes, E., & Davis, K. 2005. Not Well Known, Used Little and Needed: Canadian Chaplains’ Experiences of Published SPiritual Assessment Tools. The Journal of Pastoral Care & Counseling, 59(1–2), 97–107.Google Scholar
33. Olsen, A. 2009. Olsen’s BASIC-6 Spiritual Care Screens. PlainViews 6(22).Google Scholar
34. Pierpont, J. H. 2003. Spiritual assessment. Social Work, 48(4), 563–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Puchalski, C., & Romer, A. L. 2000. Taking a Spiritual History Allows Clinicians to Understand Patients More Fully. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 3(1), 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Robinson, M. R., Thiel, M. M., & Meyer, E. C. 2007. On being a spiritual care generalist. American Journal of Bioethics, 7(7), 24–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Rosmarin, D. H., Pirutinsky, S., & Pargament, K. I. 2011. A brief measure of core religious beliefs for use in psychiatric settings. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 41(3), 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. Sharma, R. K., Astrow, A. B., Texeira, K., & Sulmasy, D. P. 2012. The Spiritual Needs Assessment for Patients (SNAP): development and validation of a comprehensive instrument to assess unmet spiritual needs. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 44(1), 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Skalla, K. A., & McCoy, J. P. 2006. Spiritual Assessment of Patients with Cancer: The Moral Authority, Vocational, Aesthetic, Social, and Transcendent Model. Oncology Nursing Forum, 33(4), 745–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Staten, P. 2003. Spiritual assessment required in all settings. Hospital Peer Review, 28(4), 55–56.Google Scholar
41. Stoddard, G., & Burns-Haney, J. 1990. Developing an Integrated Approach to Spiritual Assessment: One Department’s Experience. The Care Giver Journal, 7(1), 63–86.Google Scholar
42. Stoll, R. I. 1979. Guidelines for Spiritual Assessment. American Journal of Nursing, 79(9), 1574–1577.Google Scholar
43. Timmons, F., & Kelly, J. 2008. Spiritual Assessment in Intensive and Cardiac Care Nursing. Nursing in Critical Care, 13(3), 124–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44. VandeCreek, L. 1999. Professional chaplaincy: an absent profession? Journal of Pastoral Care, 53(4), 417–432.Google Scholar
45. VandeCreek, L., Ayres, S., & Bassham, M. 1995. Using INSPIRIT to Conduct Spiritual Assessments. Journal of Pastoral Care, 49(1), 83–89.Google Scholar
46. Yeadon, B. E. 1986. Spiritual assessment for a community-based hospice. Caring, 5(10), 72–75.Google Scholar

Abstract

Context

The objective of the present review was to collect published spiritual needs questionnaires and to present a clear image of the research condition of this domain.

Evidence Acquisition

First, an electronic search was conducted with no limits on time span (until June 2015) or language in the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, ProQuest and Google Scholar. All derivations of the keywords religion and spiritual alongside need and its synonyms were included in the search. Researches that introduced new tools was then selected and included in the study. Due to the limited quantity of questionnaires in this domain and with no consideration given to the existence or lack of exact standardization information, all of the questionnaires were included in the final report.

Results

Eight questionnaires were found: patients spiritual needs assessment scale (PSNAS), spiritual needs inventory (SNI), spiritual interests related to illness tool (SpIRIT), spiritual needs questionnaire (SpNQ), spiritual needs assessment for patients (SNAP), spiritual needs scale (SNS), spiritual care needs inventory (SCNI), and spiritual needs questionnaire for palliative care.

Conclusions

These questionnaires have been designed from a limited medical perspective and often involve cultural concepts which complicate their cross-cultural applicability.

1. Context

There are many different definitions for spirituality, but the following is provided by Cook as a working definition: 'spirituality is a distinctive, potentially creative and universal dimension of human experience arising both within the inner subjective awareness of individuals and within communities, social groups and traditions. It may be experienced as a relationship which is intimately inner, immanent and personal, within the self and others, and/or as relationship with that which is wholly other, transcendent and beyond the self. It is experienced as being of fundamental or ultimate importance and is thus concerned with matters of meaning and purpose in life, truth and values' (). Human beings are created of two physical and spiritual dimensions, and in the holistic care mechanism, both of the dimensions should be addressed (). The world health organization (WHO) definition of supportive care of patients with serious diseases answers the spiritual needs of these patients alongside physical and psychosocial needs (3). Studies also have demonstrated that at least half of patients with chronic illnesses and their families need spiritual services. On the one hand, there is a strong association between emotional and spiritual needs of patients, their general satisfaction of treatment, and the reduction of symptoms such as anxiety, pain, and depression; on the other hand, it was seen that most health care providers were not educated enough in offering spiritual services (-).

The question remains as how these needs should be assessed. Several questionnaires are available to assess spiritual needs, though they might have some shortcomings (). First, the applied questionnaires mostly contain different religious purports and are not applicable to all communities. Second, they are considered a detailed part of a more general questionnaire about spiritual assessment. Finally, the main interest of the questionnaire designers is in nursing rather than the medicine domain (). Therefore, to improve the precision of assessment, new questionnaires are being developed by different research groups. Knowing how these questionnaires are made, their strengths and weaknesses, and their theoretical bases can provide the groundwork for creating future questionnaires. The purpose of this study was to collect comprehensive information about all of the scales that currently exist in this field. Therefore, this study may open a path for future research based on the present weaknesses.

2. Evidence Acquisition

2.1. Step One

An electronic search was performed with no limitations on time span (until June 2015) or language in databases including PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, ProQuest and Google Scholar. In order to design the search order, first, the word need and all its synonyms were selected from www.thesaurus.com as well as Oxford and Longman dictionaries. Each of them was then searched in combination with derivations of the words spirit and religion in the title and keywords fields of articles. For example, the search query in PubMed was as follows:

(spirit*[Title] OR religi*[Ttitle]) AND (need*[Title] OR wish*[Title] OR obligat*[Title] OR essenti*[Title] OR requir*[Title] OR demand*[Title] OR want*[Title] OR necess*[Title] OR requisi*[Title] OR intere*[Title])

2.2. Step Two

The titles and abstracts of the papers were studied by the authors of the present paper. The criteria for selecting papers for the final report included: the existence of one search word in the title or keyword, needs recognition being mentioned as the main research objective in the abstract, and research leading to the generation of a new questionnaire.

2.3. Step Three

Full texts of the selected papers were studied. The information was selected, and finally all the references of the selected papers were reviewed. If they met the criteria, they were added to the selected papers in the following way: the keywords were reviewed, and new synonyms were added and searched again (the final form is mentioned as above). Altogether, eight assigned questionnaires were found. Tables 1 and ​and22 lists the instruments and their psychometric properties in detail and Table 3 displays their strong and weak points.

Table 1. [Part 1]

Table 2. [Part 2]

Table 3.

3. Results

3.1. Patients Spiritual Needs Assessment Scale (PSNAS)

This scale was developed by Galek et al. in 2005 in the USA and the three names Spiritual Need Survey, spiritual need scale and patient spiritual needs assessment scale were applied for its introduction in different studies (-). This questionnaire had no special religious procedure and was based on the results of 12 qualitative, 7 quantitative, and 3 theoretical studies, using a systematic review method and had 29 yes/no questions originally (). In other studies, the developers modified the original tool and introduced the 28-item (10) and 24-item () versions of the questionnaire. PSNAS was also normalized in Turkey ().

3.2. Spiritual Needs Inventory (SNI)

This questionnaire was designed by Hermann in 2006 in the USA in a qualitative study on patients diagnosed with cancer in the final stage of life. This questionnaire, which did not have any special religious procedure, was originally a special needs questionnaire design for patient with special problems. The aim was to investigate only spiritual needs and no other topic related to spirituality. Maslow’s theory of motivation is the theoretical basis of this questionnaire, but with the assumption that spiritual needs exist at all of Maslow’s levels, with the move toward deeper levels of fulfillment of more complex and abstract needs. In SNI, for each question there was also the survey of reply to the needs along with the survey of needs existence (according to a yes/no to answer the question: 'Is this need being met in your life now?') (). SNI was normalized in a group of caregivers of patients with cancer and demonstrated the reliability and validity in the group without illness ().

3.3. Spiritual Interests Related to Illness Tool (SpIRIT)

This tool was created by Taylor in 2006 in the USA to investigate the spiritual needs prevalent in patients with cancer and their caregivers based on a qualitative and then quantitative study (, , ). The stem of all the questions in this self-report tool started with 'How important is it now to …', and at the end of each group of questions, an item asked: 'How important it is to have my (or my loved one) nurse help me satisfy these spiritual interests?' ().

A notable aspect of this questionnaire was related to word choice. Because need may transmit a negative concept, authors used the word interest to avoid misunderstanding and to decrease patient denial in reporting their needs. Another important difference between this questionnaire and others was the need to review beliefs, which involved a cognitive involvement with concepts such as unfairness of what has been happening, correctness of beliefs about God, “Why did I/we deserve this?” and finally, receiving a response or gaining acceptance (). This tool has been normalized in some other countries ().

3.4. Spiritual Needs Scale (SNS)

This scale was designed by Yong et al. in 2008 in Korea with the assumption that spiritual needs vary across cultures. To extract key concepts of spiritual needs, both an extensive literature review on spiritual needs and semistructured interviews with 10 hospitalized participants were conducted. SNS had five sub-constructs which were similar to sub-constructs of PSNAS, but which had one more construct, appreciation of beauty. On the other hand, the constructs of SpIRIT yielded two other different constructs, positive perspective and reviewing beliefs, which were not included in the constructs of SNS. This could be a sign of cultural influences on spiritual needs ().

3.5. Spiritual Needs Questionnaire (SpNQ)

This questionnaire, which may be the most important assigned questionnaire for the evaluation of spiritual needs of particular patients, was designed in 2010 by Büssing et al. in Germany. It was, in fact, a continuation of the dedication of assessing the spiritual needs of special patient populations. The reason for selecting patients with chronic illnesses such as chronic pain and cancer was that for these patients, one important method of coping with illness was the use of religion and spirituality. Most previous questionnaires focused on the spiritual needs of patients close to death as opposed to those with chronic illnesses. A novel aspect of SpNQ was the need of actively giving, which is the need of having an active role in life instead of the role of an afflicted patient ().

SpNQ has been used in different settings () and also normalized in Malaysia, Nigeria, Poland, France, China, and England and is now normalized in Iran. In each country, the questionnaire has been normalized with minor changes and the priority of needs has been reported differently ().

3.6. Spiritual Needs Assessment for Patients (SNAP)

This questionnaire was developed in 2012 by Sharma et al. in the USA and was introduced as a complete tool for spiritual needs assessment in the published paper. The developers tried to merge all the existing data in literature with experts’ opinions and also their clinical experiences. This short questionnaire consisted of 23 questions with scoring ranged between 23 and 89, such that the closer the score to 89, the greater the need. This questionnaire placed needs into three main groups and appeared as an integration of the previous needs questionnaires (). SNAP was translated and normalized in Chinese. A noteworthy point is that in the Chinese normalization, researchers found that some items that were considered as spiritual needs by western patients were not considered as such for Chinese patients ().

3.7. Spiritual Needs Questionnaire for Palliative Care

This questionnaire was developed by Vilalta et al. in 2014 in Spain. With the aim of designing a simple, effective and easily tool, they performed a comprehensive literature review and selected the most common repeated typologies of spiritual needs. After incorporating them, in collaboration with experts who were specialist in theology, ethics, bioethics, psychology and oncology, they developed the tool (). We did not find any published data about the questionnaire’s psychometric evaluation in databases we searched until the time the present article was being written, with the exception of its face validity and a pilot study involving 10 patients ().

3.8. Spiritual Care Needs Inventory (SCNI)

This questionnaire was developed by Wu et al. in 2015 in Taiwan. With the aim of designing a specific tool to assess spiritual needs in acute care hospital patients with different religious beliefs, they merged items obtained from 149 published articles and three patients’ spiritual needs instruments. After incorporating them, they performed its psychometric procedure. The Inventory placed needs into two groups. The meaning and hope component referred to the domains of self, nature and environmental aspects of spiritual well-being, and the caring and respect component referred to the domain of communal relationship with others ().

4. Discussion

This literature review identified eight questionnaires which intended to assess spiritual needs of patients. A distinctive feature of this study was collecting the detailed characteristics of the instruments with their strong and weak points. Therefore, those interested in spiritual needs can choose the appropriate instrument regarding the constructs assessed by these instruments. However, the followings are some pitfalls seem to exist in this field of research:

A, The similarity of all the aforementioned questionnaires assessed spiritual needs of patients in critical conditions, mostly patients with cancer, and designed questionnaires to answer these specific patients’ needs. On the other hand, cancer can significantly increase and change patients’ spiritual needs, because patients rely on spirituality as a strong method to deal with cancer (10, 28, ). This approach, however, clinically limits the concept to a particular group. Further studies are recommended to design appropriate instruments for other patient groups and the healthy population; B, for assessing spiritual needs, one should understand the voice that lies deep within the respondent that may reveal something of the respondent’s inner self. Furthermore, these needs are related to each other and they are not independent. Therefore, despite the advantages of questionnaires in research, clinicians should be cautious of this point and avoid applying instruments stereotypically (30); C, with the exception of the questionnaires mentioned in this paper, there were many qualitative studies to evaluate spiritual needs that considered other variables. These variables sometimes had an important role, but were not used in scales. Some examples include transcendental needs, mystical needs (including desire and mystical consciousness), which involve abstract aspects of spiritual needs (30), and needs such as life beyond the individual, need for continuity and after life, need for truth, and need for freedom and to be free (). These points highlight the need to study and develop new questionnaires that cover more dimensions of spiritual needs; D, In most of these questionnaires, normalization information was incomplete. In some, the sample volume was not only low, but often used in limited studies, and in most of them, the theoretical bases of the questionnaire design were not mentioned. Therefore, using these questionnaires in clinical daily work should be performed with care until further research is conducted; E, Some concepts of these questionnaires are culture-dependent. For example, in western cultures, listening to music is a spiritual need, while in Iran listening to the Quran is more significant. Furthermore, depending on the culture in which the questionnaire is used, the priority of needs will change. In the Chinese version of SNAP, for example, the first priority is the need of actively giving (not inner peace that is seen in the German normalization) (). In Iran, on the other hand, the significant need is going to the prayer hall and participating in mass prayer (, 30-). In Korea, in contrast with western cultures, some patients are not comfortable in talking about death and unfinished works at the end of life (). This is important from two perspectives: First, one construct can be measured by different factors in different cultures. Therefore, translating these questionnaires into different cultures requires some adjustment of certain items. Second, because of cultural differences and the relationship between spiritual needs and culture, it can be recommended to design culture-specific questionnaires; F, historically, a criticism in questionnaire design is the reductionist approach. It seems that the concept of spirituality varies from religious to secular, and this topic is seen in spiritual needs surveys. For example, in the aforementioned questionnaires, general concepts such as the need of meaning discovery in illness are weak, and strong concepts such as life beyond the individual were measured by variables such as talking with others. The concept of life beyond the individual is more extensive than interaction with others. For example, in top sense, the beauty can achieve (that is kind of intuitive beauty) (33), while the concept of life beyond the individual was simply about talking with others. This point should be considered important in culture-specific questionnaire design, especially in Eastern cultures where religious concepts have a strong link to spiritual concepts (, , ).

There were some limitations for the present study. First, there were not enough references such as congress papers, abstracts, theses, etc. The reason was the unavailability of details because of lack of publication in research sites. Second, the concept of spiritual needs is an extensive one for the introduction of which several words can be used and may be overlooked in the keywords. Furthermore, there were many questionnaires that assess different dimensions of spirituality including spiritual needs. We deleted them from our study because our focus was on the questionnaires that assessed spiritual needs specifically.

In conclusion, spiritual need is a complicated, multi-dimensional phenomenon. Although most of the studies showed that the need of relationship was the center of spiritual needs, the complexity of these needs cannot be summarized in this concept (, ). Therefore, the assessment of questionnaires should be conducted with a great deal of care and consideration. This is an aspect that has been ignored in most questionnaires and has led to the lack of harmony in terms of content and assessment.

Footnotes

Authors’ Contribution:Ruohollah Seddigh conceived and designed the evaluation, participated in drafting of the manuscript and revised it critically for important intellectual content; Amir-Abbas Keshavarz-Akhlaghi participated in designing the evaluation, collected and interpreted the data, drafted the manuscript and revised it critically for important intellectual content; Somayeh Azarnik participated in collecting and interpreting the data, drafted the manuscript and revised it critically for important intellectual content. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of Interest:None declared.

Funding/Support:This paper was the outcome of a lecture at faculty of behavioral sciences and mental health (Tehran Institute of Psychiatry), Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS) on 10 April 2014 which was changed to a paper by the audience suggestion. We appreciate their ideas.

References

Spiritual Assessment Tool For Nursing

Spiritual Needs Assessment Tool Nursing

Simple Spiritual Assessment Tool For Men

Spiritual Assessment Tools In Healthcare

Spiritual Assessment Questions