Beattie Michelle, Shepherd Ashley, Lauder William, Atherton Iain, Cowie Julie, Murphy Douglas J
School of Health Sciences, University of Stirling, Centre for Health Science, Inverness, UK.
School of Health Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
BMJ Open. 2016 Jun 14;6(6):e010101. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010101.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
开发一种结构有效且可靠的、简短的医院护理质量患者体验测量工具,即护理体验反馈改进工具(CEFIT)。同时,研究CEFIT的效用方面。
在临床界面测量质量改进已成为医疗保健测量和改进计划的必要组成部分,但测量这种复杂性的有效性取决于所使用工具的目的和效用。
CEFIT是根据一个理论模型设计的,该模型源自文献和内容效度指数(CVI)程序。通过电话调查了802名符合条件的参与者(过去12个月内有医疗保健经历)以完成CEFIT。使用克朗巴哈α系数测试内部一致性可靠性。进行主成分分析以检查因子结构并确定结构效度。应用质量标准来判断效用方面。
CVI发现患者和从业者专家在CEFIT构建方面的一致比例具有统计学意义。802名符合条件的参与者回答了CEFIT问题。内部一致性的克朗巴哈α系数表明可靠性高(0.78)。项目间(问题)与总分的相关性(0.28 - 0.73)用于确定最终工具。主成分分析确定了一个占方差57.3%的因子。质量评估将CEFIT的内容效度评为中等,结构效度评为优秀,成本评为良好,可接受性评为较差,教育影响评为良好。
CEFIT提供了一种简短但结构合理的护理质量患者体验测量方法。这个包含5个条目的工具的简短性在实践中可能具有很高的效用。需要进一步研究以探索CEFIT的效用,为向当地临床团队提供反馈并推动改善患者护理体验质量提供有力依据。还需要对效用方面进行进一步开发。