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.

Aphasia rehabilitation and the strange neglect of speed.

Timing data is infrequently reported in aphasiological literature and time taken is only a minor factor, where it is considered at all, in existing aphasia assessments. This is not surprising because reaction times are difficult to obtain manually, but it is a pity, because speed data should be indispensable in assessing the severity of language processing disorders and in evaluating the effects of treatment. This paper argues that reporting accuracy data without discussing speed of performance gives an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of any cognitive function. Moreover, in deciding how to treat, when to continue treatment and when to cease therapy, clinicians should have regard to both parameters: Speed and accuracy of performance. Crerar, Ellis and Dean (1996) reported a study in which the written sentence comprehension of 14 long-term agrammatic subjects was assessed and treated using a computer-based microworld. Some statistically significant and durable treatment effects were obtained after a short amount of focused therapy. Only accuracy data were reported in that (already long) paper, and interestingly, although it has been a widely read study, neither referees nor subsequent readers seemed to miss "the other side of the coin": How these participants compared with controls for their speed of processing and what effect treatment had on speed. This paper considers both aspects of the data and presents a tentative way of combining treatment effects on both accuracy and speed of performance in a single indicator. Looking at rehabilitation this way gives us a rather different perspective on which individuals benefited most from the intervention. It also demonstrates that while some subjects are capable of utilising metalinguistic skills to achieve normal accuracy scores even many years post-stroke, there is little prospect of reducing the time taken to within the normal range. Without considering speed of processing, the extent of this residual functional impairment can be overlooked.

Enhancing the link between business and operations strategy.

This paper reprots on the use of banchmarking to improve the links between business and operations strategies. The use of benchmarking as a toll to facilitate improvements in these crucial links is examined. The existing literature on process benchmarking is used to from a structured questionnaire to apply to six case studies of major manuifacturing companies. Four of these case studies are presented in this paper to highlight the use of benchmarking in this application. Initial researh results are presented drawing upon the critical success factors indentified both in the literature and on the case results. Recommendations for further work are outlined

Benchmarking the business and operations strategy link.

This paper reports on the use of benchmarking to improve the links between business and operations strategies. The use of benchmarking as a tool to facilitate improvement in these crucial links is examined. The existing literature on process benchmarking is used to form a structured questionnaire to apply to six case studies of major maunfacturing companies. Four of these case studies are presented drawing upon the critical success factors identified both in the literature and on the case results. Recommendations for further work are outlined.