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.

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