急诊科皮肤风险评估仪器的内容验证。

IF 0.8 Q4 NURSING
Kathleen Flarity, Wendy J Haylett, Melissa Childers
{"title":"急诊科皮肤风险评估仪器的内容验证。","authors":"Kathleen Flarity,&nbsp;Wendy J Haylett,&nbsp;Melissa Childers","doi":"10.1097/TME.0000000000000486","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pressure injuries (PIs) are an important quality and patient safety metric for health care organizations. PI monitoring and treatment are often overlooked in the emergency department (ED). Emergency care professionals must be proactive about PI early identification and prevention strategies. A team at a Level 1 trauma center recognized the need for ED-friendly documentation and a validated ED skin risk assessment instrument. The Bjorklund 25-item ED Skin/Risk Assessment Tool was selected. However, because the tool was not fully validated, permission to validate/use was obtained from the author. The purpose of this research study was to determine the content validity of the Bjorklund Tool. Using a prospective survey design, content experts were recruited from wound, quality, and ED and participated in two rounds of content validation. The experts reviewed the Tool for relevance, clarity, and appropriateness for the ED population. Item-level content validity index (I-CVI) and scale-level CVI (S-CVI) were calculated, with 0.78 and 0.90 as the lower limits of acceptability for individual items and the overall scale, respectively. Of the first round I-CVI ratings, 24 of 75 were below 0.78, including 14 for relevance, four for clarity, and six for appropriateness. S-CVI was 0.7574 for relevance, 0.8809 for clarity, 0.8592 for appropriateness, and 0.8325 overall. The Bjorklund Tool was determined to be invalid in its current form. A novel tool was thus created in the second round per content experts' recommendations. After redesign and simplifying items and images, all I-CVIs rated above 0.78. S-CVI was 0.923 for relevance, 0.9743 for clarity, 0.9615 for appropriateness, and 0.9529 overall. These CVIs indicate excellent content validity of the new UCHealth ED Skin Risk Assessment Instrument. This research contributes to establishment of content validity of a skin risk assessment instrument which can be used in the unique ED setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":45446,"journal":{"name":"Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Content Validation of an Emergency Department Skin Risk Assessment Instrument.\",\"authors\":\"Kathleen Flarity,&nbsp;Wendy J Haylett,&nbsp;Melissa Childers\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/TME.0000000000000486\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Pressure injuries (PIs) are an important quality and patient safety metric for health care organizations. PI monitoring and treatment are often overlooked in the emergency department (ED). Emergency care professionals must be proactive about PI early identification and prevention strategies. A team at a Level 1 trauma center recognized the need for ED-friendly documentation and a validated ED skin risk assessment instrument. The Bjorklund 25-item ED Skin/Risk Assessment Tool was selected. However, because the tool was not fully validated, permission to validate/use was obtained from the author. The purpose of this research study was to determine the content validity of the Bjorklund Tool. Using a prospective survey design, content experts were recruited from wound, quality, and ED and participated in two rounds of content validation. The experts reviewed the Tool for relevance, clarity, and appropriateness for the ED population. Item-level content validity index (I-CVI) and scale-level CVI (S-CVI) were calculated, with 0.78 and 0.90 as the lower limits of acceptability for individual items and the overall scale, respectively. Of the first round I-CVI ratings, 24 of 75 were below 0.78, including 14 for relevance, four for clarity, and six for appropriateness. S-CVI was 0.7574 for relevance, 0.8809 for clarity, 0.8592 for appropriateness, and 0.8325 overall. The Bjorklund Tool was determined to be invalid in its current form. A novel tool was thus created in the second round per content experts' recommendations. After redesign and simplifying items and images, all I-CVIs rated above 0.78. S-CVI was 0.923 for relevance, 0.9743 for clarity, 0.9615 for appropriateness, and 0.9529 overall. These CVIs indicate excellent content validity of the new UCHealth ED Skin Risk Assessment Instrument. This research contributes to establishment of content validity of a skin risk assessment instrument which can be used in the unique ED setting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/TME.0000000000000486\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TME.0000000000000486","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

压力损伤(PI)是卫生保健组织的一个重要质量和患者安全指标。PI监测和治疗在急诊科经常被忽视。急救专业人员必须积极主动地采取PI早期识别和预防策略。一级创伤中心的一个团队认识到需要ED友好的文件和经过验证的ED皮肤风险评估工具。选择了Bjorklund 25项ED皮肤/风险评估工具。然而,由于该工具未经完全验证,因此获得了作者的验证/使用许可。本研究的目的是确定比约克伦德工具的内容有效性。采用前瞻性调查设计,从伤口、质量和ED招募内容专家,并参与两轮内容验证。专家们审查了该工具对ED人群的相关性、清晰度和适当性。计算项目水平内容有效性指数(I-CVI)和量表水平CVI(S-CVI),单项和整体量表的可接受下限分别为0.78和0.90。在第一轮I-CVI评分中,75分中有24分低于0.78,其中14分为相关性,4分为清晰性,6分为适当性。S-CVI的相关性为0.7574,清晰度为0.8809,适当性为0.8592,总体为0.8325。Bjorklund工具在目前的形式下被确定为无效。因此,根据内容专家的建议,在第二轮中创建了一个新颖的工具。在重新设计和简化项目和图像后,所有I-CVI的评分都在0.78以上。S-CVI的相关性为0.923,清晰度为0.9743,适当性为0.9615,总体为0.9529。这些CVI表明新的UCHealth ED皮肤风险评估仪器具有良好的内容有效性。这项研究有助于建立一种可用于独特ED环境的皮肤风险评估工具的内容有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Content Validation of an Emergency Department Skin Risk Assessment Instrument.

Pressure injuries (PIs) are an important quality and patient safety metric for health care organizations. PI monitoring and treatment are often overlooked in the emergency department (ED). Emergency care professionals must be proactive about PI early identification and prevention strategies. A team at a Level 1 trauma center recognized the need for ED-friendly documentation and a validated ED skin risk assessment instrument. The Bjorklund 25-item ED Skin/Risk Assessment Tool was selected. However, because the tool was not fully validated, permission to validate/use was obtained from the author. The purpose of this research study was to determine the content validity of the Bjorklund Tool. Using a prospective survey design, content experts were recruited from wound, quality, and ED and participated in two rounds of content validation. The experts reviewed the Tool for relevance, clarity, and appropriateness for the ED population. Item-level content validity index (I-CVI) and scale-level CVI (S-CVI) were calculated, with 0.78 and 0.90 as the lower limits of acceptability for individual items and the overall scale, respectively. Of the first round I-CVI ratings, 24 of 75 were below 0.78, including 14 for relevance, four for clarity, and six for appropriateness. S-CVI was 0.7574 for relevance, 0.8809 for clarity, 0.8592 for appropriateness, and 0.8325 overall. The Bjorklund Tool was determined to be invalid in its current form. A novel tool was thus created in the second round per content experts' recommendations. After redesign and simplifying items and images, all I-CVIs rated above 0.78. S-CVI was 0.923 for relevance, 0.9743 for clarity, 0.9615 for appropriateness, and 0.9529 overall. These CVIs indicate excellent content validity of the new UCHealth ED Skin Risk Assessment Instrument. This research contributes to establishment of content validity of a skin risk assessment instrument which can be used in the unique ED setting.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal is a peer-reviewed journal designed to meet the needs of advanced practice clinicians, clinical nurse specialists, nurse practitioners, healthcare professionals, and clinical and academic educators in emergency nursing. Articles contain evidence-based material that can be applied to daily practice. Continuing Education opportunities are available in each issue. Feature articles focus on in-depth, state of the science content relevant to advanced practice nurses and experienced clinicians in emergency care. Ongoing Departments Include: Cases of Note Radiology Rounds Research to Practice Applied Pharmacology
×
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