Development and preliminary psychometric properties of the Care Experience Feedback Improvement Tool (CEFIT).

Objective To develop a structurally valid and reliable, yet brief measure of patient experience of hospital quality of care, the Care Experience Feedback Improvement Tool (CEFIT). Also, to examine aspects of utility of CEFIT. Background Measuring quality improvement at the clinical interface has become a necessary component of healthcare measurement and improvement plans, but the effectiveness of measuring such complexity is dependent on the purpose and utility of the instrument used. Methods CEFIT was designed from a theoretical model, derived from the literature and a content validity index (CVI) procedure. A telephone population surveyed 802 eligible participants (healthcare experience within the previous 12 months) to complete CEFIT. Internal consistency reliability was tested using Cronbach's α. Principal component analysis was conducted to examine the factor structure and determine structural validity. Quality criteria were applied to judge aspects of utility. Results CVI found a statistically significant proportion of agreement between patient and practitioner experts for CEFIT construction. 802 eligible participants answered the CEFIT questions. Cronbach's α coefficient for internal consistency indicated high reliability (0.78). Interitem (question) total correlations (0.28–0.73) were used to establish the final instrument. Principal component analysis identified one factor accounting for 57.3% variance. Quality critique rated CEFIT as fair for content validity, excellent for structural validity, good for cost, poor for acceptability and good for educational impact. Conclusions CEFIT offers a brief yet structurally sound measure of patient experience of quality of care. The briefness of the 5-item instrument arguably offers high utility in practice. Further studies are needed to explore the utility of CEFIT to provide a robust basis for feedback to local clinical teams and drive quality improvement in the provision of care experience for patients. Further development of aspects of utility is also required.

A rehabilitation intervention to promote physical recovery following intensive care: a detailed description of construct development, rationale and content together with proposed taxonomy to capture processes in a randomised controlled trial.

Background: increasing numbers of patients are surviving critical illness, but survival may be associated with a constellation of physical and psychological sequelae that can cause on going disability and reduced health-related quality of life. Limited evidence currently exists to guide the optimum structure, timing, and content of rehabilitation programmes. There is a need to both develop and evaluate interventions to support and expedite recovery during the post-ICU discharge period. This paper describes the construct development for a complex rehabilitation intervention intended to promote physical recovery following critical illness. The intervention is currently being evaluated in a randomised trial (ISRCTN09412438; funder Chief Scientists Office, Scotland). Methods: the intervention was developed using the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex healthcare interventions. We ensured representation from a wide variety of stakeholders including content experts from multiple specialties, methodologists, and patient representation. The intervention construct was initially based on literature review, local observational and audit work, qualitative studies with ICU survivors, and brainstorming activities. Iterative refinement was aided by the publication of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline (No. 83), publicly available patient stories (Healthtalkonline), a stakeholder event in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, and local piloting. Modelling and further work involved a feasibility trial and development of a novel generic rehabilitation assistant (GRA) role. Several rounds of external peer review during successive funding applications also contributed to development. Results: the final construct for the complex intervention involved a dedicated GRA trained to pre-defined competencies across multiple rehabilitation domains (physiotherapy, dietetics, occupational therapy, and speech/language therapy), with specific training in post-critical illness issues. The intervention was from ICU discharge to 3 months post-discharge, including inpatient and post-hospital discharge elements. Clear strategies to provide information to patients/families were included. A detailed taxonomy was developed to define and describe the processes undertaken, and capture them during the trial. The detailed process measure description, together with a range of patient, health service, and economic outcomes were successfully mapped on to the modified CONSORT recommendations for reporting non-pharmacologic trial interventions. Conclusions: the MRC complex intervention framework was an effective guide to developing a novel post-ICU rehabilitation intervention. Combining a clearly defined new healthcare role with a detailed taxonomy of process and activity enabled the intervention to be clearly described for the purpose of trial delivery and reporting. These data will be useful when interpreting the results of the randomised trial, will increase internal and external trial validity, and help others implement the intervention if the intervention proves clinically and cost effective.