The development of the Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative Care (QuIRC): a measure of best practice for facilities for people with longer term mental health problems

BACKGROUND: Despite the progress over recent decades in developing community mental health services internationally, many people still receive treatment and care in institutional settings. Those most likely to reside longest in these facilities have the most complex mental health problems and are at most risk of potential abuses of care and exploitation. This study aimed to develop an international, standardised toolkit to assess the quality of care in longer term hospital and community based mental health units, including the degree to which human rights, social inclusion and autonomy are promoted. METHOD: The domains of care included in the toolkit were identified from a systematic literature review, international expert Delphi exercise, and review of care standards in ten European countries. The draft toolkit comprised 154 questions for unit managers. Inter-rater reliability was tested in 202 units across ten countries at different stages of deinstitutionalisation and development of community mental health services. Exploratory factor analysis was used to corroborate the allocation of items to domains. Feedback from those using the toolkit was collected about its usefulness and ease of completion. RESULTS: The toolkit had excellent inter-rater reliability and few items with narrow spread of response. Unit managers found the content highly relevant and were able to complete it in around 90 minutes. Minimal refinement was required and the final version comprised 145 questions assessing seven domains of care. CONCLUSIONS: Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative evidence directed the development of a robust and comprehensive international quality assessment toolkit for units in highly variable socioeconomic and political contexts

Validity and reliability of the Spanish version of the DN4 (Douleur Neuropathique 4 questions) questionnaire for differential diagnosis of pain syndromes associated to a neuropathic or somatic component

BACKGROUND This study assesses the validity and reliability of the Spanish version of DN4 questionnaire as a tool for differential diagnosis of pain syndromes associated to a neuropathic (NP) or somatic component (non-neuropathic pain, NNP). METHODS A study was conducted consisting of two phases: cultural adaptation into the Spanish language by means of conceptual equivalence, including forward and backward translations in duplicate and cognitive debriefing, and testing of psychometric properties in patients with NP (peripheral, central and mixed) and NNP. The analysis of psychometric properties included reliability (internal consistency, inter-rater agreement and test-retest reliability) and validity (ROC curve analysis, agreement with the reference diagnosis and determination of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values in different subsamples according to type of NP). RESULTS A sample of 164 subjects (99 women, 60.4%; age: 60.4 +/- 16.0 years), 94 (57.3%) with NP (36 with peripheral, 32 with central, and 26 with mixed pain) and 70 with NNP was enrolled. The questionnaire was reliable [Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.71, inter-rater agreement coefficient: 0.80 (0.71-0.89), and test-retest intra-class correlation coefficient: 0.95 (0.92-0.97)] and valid for a cut-off value > or = 4 points, which was the best value to discriminate between NP and NNP subjects. DISCUSSION This study, representing the first validation of the DN4 questionnaire into another language different than the original, not only supported its high discriminatory value for identification of neuropathic pain, but also provided supplemental psychometric validation (i.e. test-retest reliability, influence of educational level and pain intensity) and showed its validity in mixed pain syndromes.

Escalas de valoración del riesgo de desarrollar úlceras por presión

Aim: to find the Risk Assessment Scales (RAS) for pressure ulcers in children published in the literature. To determine which of them have been properly validated. Methods: a systematic review of the literature has been conducted searching in 14 Health Sciences databases. The inclusion criteria were: studies published between 1962 and 2009, with a prospective design, less than a 25 % lost to follow-up, and with data of validity, prognostic or reliability. No language restriction was applied. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed by the CASP guide. Results: seventeen studies were found. In these studies 11 RAS for children were identified. Most of them were developed for the critical care area, based on previous risk assessment scales for adult. There are only 3 scales with one validation study: NSRAS, Braden Q and Starkid Skin. Their sensibility and specificity figures are: Braden Q, sens = 88% and specif. 58%; NSRAS, 83% and 81%; and Starkid Skin, 17% and 98%. Although the NSRAS scale has good validity figures, the simple size of this study was too small, so these results need further validation. The Starkid scale has a sensibility too low. The Braden Q was the only scale with suitable validity and prognostic figures, though its inter-observers reliability has not been tested, so more research to confirm these results is needed. The assessment of pressure ulcers risk in children is recommended, although, with the available evidence, we can not recommend the use of any of these RAS over the others. More research about this topic is needed.

Retest reliability of individual p3 topography assessed by high density electroencephalography.

BACKGROUND Some controversy remains about the potential applicability of cognitive potentials for evaluating the cerebral activity associated with cognitive capacity. A fundamental requirement is that these neurophysiological parameters show a high level of stability over time. Previous studies have shown that the reliability of diverse parameters of the P3 component (latency and amplitude) ranges between moderate and high. However, few studies have paid attention to the retest reliability of the P3 topography in groups or individuals. Considering that changes in P3 topography have been related to different pathologies and healthy aging, the main objective of this article was to evaluate in a longitudinal study (two sessions) the reliability of P3 topography in a group and at the individual level. RESULTS The correlation between sessions for P3 topography in the grand average of groups was high (r = 0.977, p<0.001). The within-subject correlation values ranged from 0.626 to 0.981 (mean: 0.888). In the between-subjects topography comparisons, the correlation was always lower for comparisons between different subjects than for within-subjects correlations in the first session but not in the second session. CONCLUSIONS The present study shows that P3 topography is highly reliable for group analysis (comprising the same subjects) in different sessions. The results also confirmed that retest reliability for individual P3 maps is suitable for follow-up studies for a particular subject. Moreover, P3 topography appears to be a specific marker considering that the between-subjects correlations were lower than the within-subject correlations. However, P3 topography appears more similar between subjects in the second session, demonstrating that is modulated by experience. Possible clinical applications of all these results are discussed.