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.

Health-related quality of life: implications for critical care interventional studies and why we need to collaborate with patients.

Purpose of review: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important patient-reported outcome measure following critical illness. ‘Validated’ and professionally endorsed generic measures are widely used to evaluate critical care intervention and guide practice, policy and research. Although recognizing that they are ‘here to stay’, leading QoL researchers are beginning to question their ‘fitness for purpose’. It is therefore timely to review critiques of their limitations in the wider healthcare and social science literatures and to examine the implications for critical care research including, in particular, emerging interventional studies in which HRQoL is the primary outcome of interest. Recent findings: Generic HRQoL measures have provided important yet limited insights into HRQoL among survivors of critical illness. They are rarely developed or validated in collaboration with patients and cannot therefore be assumed to reflect their experiences and perspectives. Summary: Collaboration with patients is advocated in order to improve the interpretation and utility of such data. Failure to do so may result in important study effects being overlooked and the dismissal of potentially useful interventions.