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.

一种评估急诊科临终关怀的审计工具的开发:一项面部和内容效度研究
急诊科(ED)越来越多地照顾需要临终关怀(EOLC)的急性、慢性和终末期疾病患者。目前还没有发表和验证的工具可用于评估急诊科死亡患者的EOLC交付。本研究描述了面部和内容有效性测试过程,以开发、完善和测试一种新的独特审计工具来评估急诊科的EOLC。方法面部和内容验证过程使用三轮改进的德尔菲技术。我们咨询了11位专家,对建议的89个项目进行了评估。面子效度探讨了适当性和相关性的整体问题;内容效度在两轮中使用内容效度指数(CVI) 4点李克特量表检查相关性评级。评级的迭代评估导致工具项目的纳入(CVI > 0.78)、修订(CVI < 0.78)或排除(CVI < 0.65)。结果在最初的89个项目中,66个项目被纳入(CVI > 0.78), 16个项目被修改(得分<; 0.78), 7个项目被删除(得分<; 0.65), 2个新项目被建议。项目包括病人特征、死亡情况、急诊科表现、沟通和护理计划、对死亡的认识、护理交付以及家庭和护理人员的需求。量表CVI达到0.90。81个项目的综合清单达到了可接受的表面效度和极好的内容效度。结论ED EOLC审计工具的面效度和内容效度达到了可接受的项目- cvi分数和优秀的量表- cvi分数。我们建议在现实环境中对其组成部分进行外部验证,以监测和设定当地相关的临床实践基准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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