Development of an Audit Tool to Evaluate End of Life Care in the Emergency Department: A Face and Content Validity Study

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Melissa Heufel, Sarah Kourouche, Rebecca Mitchell, Magnolia Cardona, Benjamin Thomas, Wing-Shan Angela Lo, Marghie Murgo, Debbie Vergan, Kate Curtis
{"title":"Development of an Audit Tool to Evaluate End of Life Care in the Emergency Department: A Face and Content Validity Study","authors":"Melissa Heufel,&nbsp;Sarah Kourouche,&nbsp;Rebecca Mitchell,&nbsp;Magnolia Cardona,&nbsp;Benjamin Thomas,&nbsp;Wing-Shan Angela Lo,&nbsp;Marghie Murgo,&nbsp;Debbie Vergan,&nbsp;Kate Curtis","doi":"10.1111/jep.70041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Emergency Departments (ED) are increasingly caring for patients with acute, chronic and terminal conditions requiring End of Life Care (EOLC). There is no published and validated tool available to evaluate EOLC delivery of patients dying in the ED. This study describes the face and content validity testing process to develop, refine and test a new and unique audit tool to evaluate EOLC in the ED.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The face and content validation process used a three-round modified-Delphi technique. We consulted 11 experts to assess the proposed 89 items. Face validity explored the overall question of appropriateness and relevance; and content validity examined relevance ratings using the Content Validity Index (CVI) 4-point Likert scale in two rounds. Iterative assessment of ratings led to inclusion (CVI &gt; 0.78), revision (CVI 0.65 to &lt; 0.78) or exclusion (CVI &lt; 0.65) of items from the tool.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of the initial 89 items, 66 were included (CVI &gt; 0.78), 16 items revised (scores 0.65 to &lt; 0.78), seven were removed (scores &lt; 0.65) and two new items suggested. Items covered the constructs patient characteristics, circumstances of death, ED performance, communication and care planning, recognition of dying, care delivery, and needs of families and carers. Scale CVI achieved 0.90. The consolidated list of 81 items achieved acceptable face validity and excellent content validity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Face and content validity of the ED EOLC audit tool achieved acceptable item-CVI scores and an excellent scale-CVI score. We recommend external validation of its components in real-life settings to monitor and set locally relevant clinical practice benchmarks.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70041","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70041","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Emergency Departments (ED) are increasingly caring for patients with acute, chronic and terminal conditions requiring End of Life Care (EOLC). There is no published and validated tool available to evaluate EOLC delivery of patients dying in the ED. This study describes the face and content validity testing process to develop, refine and test a new and unique audit tool to evaluate EOLC in the ED.

Methods

The face and content validation process used a three-round modified-Delphi technique. We consulted 11 experts to assess the proposed 89 items. Face validity explored the overall question of appropriateness and relevance; and content validity examined relevance ratings using the Content Validity Index (CVI) 4-point Likert scale in two rounds. Iterative assessment of ratings led to inclusion (CVI > 0.78), revision (CVI 0.65 to < 0.78) or exclusion (CVI < 0.65) of items from the tool.

Results

Of the initial 89 items, 66 were included (CVI > 0.78), 16 items revised (scores 0.65 to < 0.78), seven were removed (scores < 0.65) and two new items suggested. Items covered the constructs patient characteristics, circumstances of death, ED performance, communication and care planning, recognition of dying, care delivery, and needs of families and carers. Scale CVI achieved 0.90. The consolidated list of 81 items achieved acceptable face validity and excellent content validity.

Conclusion

Face and content validity of the ED EOLC audit tool achieved acceptable item-CVI scores and an excellent scale-CVI score. We recommend external validation of its components in real-life settings to monitor and set locally relevant clinical practice benchmarks.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信