Psychometric properties of the Swiss version of the Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture

The Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture (NHSPSC) was specifically developed for nursing homes to assess a facility’s safety climate and it consists of 12 dimensions. After its pilot testing, however, no fur- ther psychometric analyses were performed on the instrument. For this study of safety climate in Swiss nursing home units, the NHSPSC was linguistically adapted to the Swiss context and to address the unit as well as facility level, with the aim of testing aspects of the validity and reliability of the Swiss version before its use in Swiss nursing home units. Psychometric analyses were performed on data from 367 nurs- ing personnel from nine nursing homes in the German-speaking part of Switzerland (response rate = 66%), and content validity (CVI) examined. The statistical influence of unit membership on respondents’ answers, and on their agreement concerning their units’ safety climate, was tested using intraclass corre- lation coefficients (ICCs) and the rWG(J) interrater agreement index. A multilevel exploratory factor analysis (MEFA) with oblimin rotation was applied to examine the questionnaire’s dimensionality. Cronbach’s alpha and Raykov’s rho were calculated to assess factor reliability. The relationship of safety climate dimensions with clinical outcomes was explored. Expert feedback confirmed the relevance of the instru- ment’s items (CVI = 0.93). Personnel showed strong agreement in their perceptions in three dimensions of the questionnaire. ICCs supported a multilevel analysis. MEFA produced nine factors at the within-level (in comparison to 12 in the original version) and two factors at the between-level with satisfactory fit statis- tics. Raykov’s Rho for the single level factors ranged between 0.67 and 0.86. Some safety climate dimen- sions show moderate, but non-significant correlations with the use of bedrails, physical restraint use, and fall-related injuries. The Swiss version of the NHSPSC needs further refinement and testing before its use can be recommended in Swiss nursing homes: its dimensionality needs further clarification, particularly to distinguish items addressing the unit-level safety climate from those at the facility level.

Exploring the validity and reliability of a questionnaire for evaluating virtual patient design with a special emphasis on fostering clinical reasoning

Background: The design of Virtual Patients (VPs) is essential. So far there are no validated evaluation instruments for VP design published. Summary of work: We examined three sources of validity evidence of an instrument to be filled out by students aimed at measuring the quality of VPs with a special emphasis on fostering clinical reasoning: (1) Content was examined based on theory of clinical reasoning and an international VP expert team. (2) Response process was explored in think aloud pilot studies with students and content analysis of free text questions accompanying each item of the instrument. (3) Internal structure was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using 2547 student evaluations and reliability was examined utilizing generalizability analysis. Summary of results: Content analysis was supported by theory underlying Gruppen and Frohna’s clinical reasoning model on which the instrument is based and an international VP expert team. The pilot study and analysis of free text comments supported the validity of the instrument. The CFA indicated that a three factor model comprising 6 items showed a good fit with the data. Alpha coefficients per factor were 0,74 - 0,82. The findings of the generalizability studies indicated that 40-200 student responses are needed in order to obtain reliable data on one VP. Conclusions: The described instrument has the potential to provide faculty with reliable and valid information about VP design. Take-home messages: We present a short instrument which can be of help in evaluating the design of VPs.

Towards a taxonomy of common factors in psychotherapy-results of an expert survey

BACKGROUND: How change comes about is hotly debated in psychotherapy research. One camp considers 'non-specific' or 'common factors', shared by different therapy approaches, as essential, whereas researchers of the other camp consider specific techniques as the essential ingredients of change. This controversy, however, suffers from unclear terminology and logical inconsistencies. The Taxonomy Project therefore aims at contributing to the definition and conceptualization of common factors of psychotherapy by analyzing their differential associations to standard techniques. METHODS: A review identified 22 common factors discussed in psychotherapy research literature. We conducted a survey, in which 68 psychotherapy experts assessed how common factors are implemented by specific techniques. Using hierarchical linear models, we predicted each common factor by techniques and by experts' age, gender and allegiance to a therapy orientation. RESULTS: Common factors differed largely in their relevance for technique implementation. Patient engagement, Affective experiencing and Therapeutic alliance were judged most relevant. Common factors also differed with respect to how well they could be explained by the set of techniques. We present detailed profiles of all common factors by the (positively or negatively) associated techniques. There were indications of a biased taxonomy not covering the embodiment of psychotherapy (expressed by body-centred techniques such as progressive muscle relaxation, biofeedback training and hypnosis). Likewise, common factors did not adequately represent effective psychodynamic and systemic techniques. CONCLUSION: This taxonomic endeavour is a step towards a clarification of important core constructs of psychotherapy. KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGE: This article relates standard techniques of psychotherapy (well known to practising therapists) to the change factors/change mechanisms discussed in psychotherapy theory. It gives a short review of the current debate on the mechanisms by which psychotherapy works. We provide detailed profiles of change mechanisms and how they may be generated by practice techniques.

Early detection of lung cancer: a statement from an expert panel of the Swiss university hospitals on lung cancer screening.

The discussion about setting up a program for lung cancer screening was launched with the publication of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial, which suggested reduced mortality in high-risk subjects undergoing CT screening. However, important questions about the benefit-harm balance and the details of a screening program and its cost-effectiveness remain unanswered. A panel of specialists in chest radiology, respiratory medicine, epidemiology, and thoracic surgery representing all Swiss university hospitals prepared this joint statement following several meetings. The panel argues that premature and uncontrolled introduction of a lung cancer screening program may cause substantial harm that may remain undetected without rigorous quality control. This position paper focuses on the requirements of running such a program with the objective of harmonizing efforts across the involved specialties and institutions and defining quality standards. The underlying statement includes information on current evidence for a reduction in mortality with lung cancer screening and the potential epidemiologic implications of such a program in Switzerland. Furthermore, requirements for lung cancer screening centers are defined, and recommendations for both the CT technique and the algorithm for lung nodule assessment are provided. In addition, related issues such as patient management, registry, and funding are addressed. Based on the current state of the knowledge, the panel concludes that lung cancer screening in Switzerland should be undertaken exclusively within a national observational study in order to provide answers to several critical questions before considering broad population-based screening for lung cancer.

Exploring the validity and reliability of a questionnaire for evaluating virtual patient design with a special emphasis on fostering clinical reasoning

Background: Virtual patients (VPs) are increasingly used to train clinical reasoning. So far, no validated evaluation instruments for VP design are available. Aims: We examined the validity of an instrument for assessing the perception of VP design by learners. Methods: Three sources of validity evidence were examined: (i) Content was examined based on theory of clinical reasoning and an international VP expert team. (ii) The response process was explored in think-aloud pilot studies with medical students and in content analyses of free text questions accompanying each item of the instrument. (iii) Internal structure was assessed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and inter-rater reliability by generalizability analysis. Results: Content analysis was reasonably supported by the theoretical foundation and the VP expert team. The think-aloud studies and analysis of free text comments supported the validity of the instrument. In the EFA, using 2547 student evaluations of a total of 78 VPs, a three-factor model showed a reasonable fit with the data. At least 200 student responses are needed to obtain a reliable evaluation of a VP on all three factors. Conclusion: The instrument has the potential to provide valid information about VP design, provided that many responses per VP are available.