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.

The Development of a Holistic and Quantitative Tool for the Assessment and Improvement of Survey Quality.

There are a variety of guidelines and methods available to measure and assess survey quality. Most of these are based on qualitative descriptions. In practice, they are not easy to implement and it is very difficult to make comparisons between surveys. Hence there is a theoretical and pragmatic demand to develop a mainly quantitative based survey assessment tool. This research aimed to meet this need and make contributions to the evaluation and improvement of survey quality. Acknowledging the critical importance of measurement issues in survey research, this thesis starts with a comprehensive introduction to measurement theory and identifies the types of measurement errors associated with measurement procedures through three experiments. Then it moves on to describe concepts, guidelines and methods available for measuring and assessing survey quality. Combining these with measurement principles leads to the development of a quantitative based statistical holistic tool to measure and assess survey quality. The criteria, weights and subweights for the assessment tool are determined using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) and a survey questionnaire based on the Delphi method. Finally the model is applied to a database of surveys which was constructed to develop methods of classification, assessment and improvement of survey quality. The model developed in this thesis enables survey researchers and/or commissioners to make a holistic assessment of the value of the particular survey(s). This model is an Excel based audit which takes a holistic approach, following all stages of the survey from inception, to design, construction, execution, analysis and dissemination. At each stage a set of criteria are applied to assess quality. Scores attained against these assessments are weighted by the importance of the criteria and summed to give an overall assessment of the stage. The total score for a survey can be obtained by a combination of the scores for every stage weighted again by the importance of each stage. The advantage of this is to construct a means of survey assessment which can be used in a diagnostic manner to assess and improve survey quality.

Health-Related Quality of Life for individuals with hepatitis C: A narrative review.

BACKGROUND The assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in hepatitis C (HCV) infected individuals continues to gain importance. However, rarely do reviews of this literature consider quantitative and qualitative accounts of HRQoL collectively, which only allows partial insight into the topic. This narrative review aims to address this gap in the literature. METHODS Literature searches were conducted using seven databases with two separate search strategies, and results assessed for eligibility using specific inclusion/exclusion criteria; a data extraction sheet was used to identify the dominant themes for each research paradigm which were then distilled to key findings to construct the narrative. RESULTS Quantitative investigation reveals a low HRQoL in individuals with HCV due to a complex multifactorial cause. During treatment for HCV, a further transient reduction is observed, followed by improvement if a sustained virological response is achieved. Qualitative data provide a recognisable voice to the everyday challenges experienced by individuals with HCV including insights into diagnosis and stigmatisation, contextualising how a reduced HRQoL is experienced day-to-day. Methodological limitations of these findings are then discussed. Much of the quantitative data has little relevance to current substance users as they are excluded from most trials, and appraisal of the qualitative literature reveals a marked difference in the lived experience of HCV infected current substance users and that of other HCV groups. CONCLUSION Concurrent analysis of quantitative and qualitative paradigms provides a deeper understanding of the true burden of HCV illness on HRQoL. Greater utilisation of qualitative research within international clinical guidelines is likely to be of benefit in identifying relevant HRQoL outcomes for substance users.

Development of process control methodology for tracking the quality and safety of pain, agitation and sedation management in critical care units

Objective: To develop sedation, pain, and agitation quality measures using process control methodology and evaluate their properties in clinical practice. Design: A Sedation Quality Assessment Tool was developed and validated to capture data for 12-hour periods of nursing care. Domains included pain/discomfort and sedation-agitation behaviors; sedative, analgesic, and neuromuscular blocking drug administration; ventilation status; and conditions potentially justifying deep sedation. Predefined sedation-related adverse events were recorded daily. Using an iterative process, algorithms were developed to describe the proportion of care periods with poor limb relaxation, poor ventilator synchronization, unnecessary deep sedation, agitation, and an overall optimum sedation metric. Proportion charts described processes over time (2 monthly intervals) for each ICU. The numbers of patients treated between sedation-related adverse events were described with G charts. Automated algorithms generated charts for 12 months of sequential data. Mean values for each process were calculated, and variation within and between ICUs explored qualitatively. Setting: Eight Scottish ICUs over a 12-month period. Patients: Mechanically ventilated patients. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: The Sedation Quality Assessment Tool agitation-sedation domains correlated with the Richmond Sedation Agitation Scale score (Spearman [rho] = 0.75) and were reliable in clinician-clinician (weighted kappa; [kappa] = 0.66) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.82) comparisons. The limb movement domain had fair correlation with Behavioral Pain Scale ([rho] = 0.24) and was reliable in clinician-clinician ([kappa] = 0.58) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.45) comparisons. Ventilator synchronization correlated with Behavioral Pain Scale ([rho] = 0.54), and reliability in clinician-clinician ([kappa] = 0.29) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.42) comparisons was fair-moderate. Eight hundred twenty-five patients were enrolled (range, 59-235 across ICUs), providing 12,385 care periods for evaluation (range 655-3,481 across ICUs). The mean proportion of care periods with each quality metric varied between ICUs: excessive sedation 12-38%; agitation 4-17%; poor relaxation 13-21%; poor ventilator synchronization 8-17%; and overall optimum sedation 45-70%. Mean adverse event intervals ranged from 1.5 to 10.3 patients treated. The quality measures appeared relatively stable during the observation period. Conclusions: Process control methodology can be used to simultaneously monitor multiple aspects of pain-sedation-agitation management within ICUs. Variation within and between ICUs could be used as triggers to explore practice variation, improve quality, and monitor this over time