Dataset Information

The development and validation of a new interprofessional team approach evaluation scale.

ABSTRACT: A team approach in health care involves an interprofessional approach to patient care. We wanted to develop and validate a tool that would evaluate the interprofessional team approach to patients of a family medicine team. We performed a descriptive study in three consecutive phases: a literature review, consensus development panels, and a cross-sectional validation study. Three rounds of consensus development panels were carried out in order to evaluate and adapt the initial scale. The cross-sectional study was carried out in all Slovenian family medicine practices, each invited 10 consecutive patients. In the quantitative study, 3,292 patients participated (a 50.7% response rate), of which 1,810 (55.0%) were women. The mean age of the sample was 53.1 ± 1.2 years. The final Cronbach's alpha was 0.901. A factor analysis of the 9-item scale put forward two factors (Team Approach and Person-Centred approach) which explained 68.6% of the variance. This study provided a new scale for the evaluation of patient satisfaction with the interprofessional family medicine team from the patients' point of view. It opened the question of family medicine team competencies and pointed towards the need to develop a family medicine interprofessional team competency framework and a comprehensive tool for its assessment.

SUBMITTER: Klemenc-Ketis Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6084891 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The development and validation of a new interprofessional team approach evaluation scale.

Klemenc-Ketis Zalika Z Makivić Irena I Poplas Susic Antonija A

PloS one 20180809 8

A team approach in health care involves an interprofessional approach to patient care. We wanted to develop and validate a tool that would evaluate the interprofessional team approach to patients of a family medicine team. We performed a descriptive study in three consecutive phases: a literature review, consensus development panels, and a cross-sectional validation study. Three rounds of consensus development panels were carried out in order to evaluate and adapt the initial scale. The cross-se ...[more]

PMID: 30092005

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInterprofessional education (IPE) interventions are not always successful in achieving learning outcomes. Team-Based Learning (TBL) would appear to be a suitable pedagogical method for IPE, as it focuses on team performance; however, little is known about interprofessional TBL as an instructional framework for patient safety. In this pilot-study, we aimed to (1) describe participants' reactions to TBL, (2) observe their achievement with respect to interprofessional education learning objectives, and (3) document their attitudinal shifts with regard to patient safety behaviours.MethodsWe developed and implemented a three-day course for pre-qualifying, non-medical healthcare students to give instruction on non-technical skills related to 'learning from errors'. The course consisted of three sequential modules: 'Recognizing Errors', 'Analysing Errors', and 'Reporting Errors'. The evaluation took place within a quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test study design. Participants completed self-assessments through valid and reliable instruments such as the Mennenga's TBL Student Assessment Instrument and the University of the West of England's Interprofessional Questionnaire. The mean scores of the individual readiness assurance tests were compared with the scores of the group readiness assurance test in order to explore if students learned from each other during group discussions. Data was analysed using descriptive (i.e. mean, standard deviation), parametric (i.e. paired t-test), and non-parametric (i.e. Wilcoxon signed-rank test) methods.ResultsThirty-nine students from five different bachelor's programs attended the course. The participants positively rated TBL as an instructional approach. All teams outperformed the mean score of their individual members during the readiness assurance process. We observed significant improvements in 'communication and teamwork' and 'interprofessional learning' but not in 'interprofessional interaction' and 'interprofessional relationships.' Findings on safety attitudes and behaviours were mixed.ConclusionTBL was well received by the students. Our first findings indicate that interprofessional TBL seems to be a promising pedagogical method to achieve patient safety learning objectives. It is crucial to develop relevant clinical cases that involve all professions. Further research with larger sample sizes (e.g. including medical students) and more rigorous study designs (e.g. pre-test post-test with a control group) is needed to confirm our preliminary findings.

Project description:Objectives: The implementation of obstetric hybrid simulation and interprofessional collaboration between midwives and anesthetists in labor emergencies fostered the need to evaluate the impact of such a program. The original Interprofessional Attitude Scale (IPAS) assesses interprofessional attitudes among health professional students and includes the 2011 and 2016 Interprofessional Collaborative Practice report competency domains. The purpose of this study was to create a German version of the IPAS (G-IPAS) to use for the education of healthcare students. Methods: We performed the translation and validation of the IPAS in five steps: translation to German according to the International Society of Pharmaeconomics and Outcome Research guidelines; nine cognitive interviews with healthcare professionals and students;calculation of the Content Validity Index (CVI) by expert opinion; exploratory factor analysis (EFA); and internal consistency by Cronbach's alpha. All study participants gave written informed consent and the cantonal ethics committee waived further ethical approval. Results: The cognitive interviews led to replacement of single-item wording. We retained 27 items for CVI analysis. The averaged overall CVI was 0.79, with 15 items ?0.89. 185 students (70 medicine, 51 nursing, 48 physiotherapy, and 16 midwifery) contributed with data for the EFA and it produced three subscales. "Teamwork, roles, and responsibilities" with factor loadings ?0.49, "Patient-centeredness" with factor loadings ?0.31, and "Community-centeredness" with factor loadings ?0.57. Two items of the total scale were deleted, and four items were redistributed to another subscale. Cronbach's alpha for the overall G-IPAS scale was 0.87. After deleting and redistributing items in subscales, a new Scale-CVI/Average was calculated and was 0.82. Conclusions: Based on a rigorous validation process, the G-IPAS provides a reliable tool to assess attitudes towards interprofessional education among different healthcare professions in German-speaking countries.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop the Motivation in stroke patients for rehabilitation scale (MORE scale), following the Consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN).MethodStudy participants included rehabilitation professionals working at the convalescent rehabilitation hospital and stroke patients admitted to the hospital. The original MORE scale was developed from an item pool, which was created through discussions of nine rehabilitation professionals. After the content validity of the scale was verified using the Delphi method with 61 rehabilitation professionals and 22 stroke patients, the scale's validity and reliability were examined for 201 stroke patients. The construct validity of the scale was investigated using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and item response theory analysis. Cronbach's alpha confirmed its internal consistency. Regarding convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity, Spearman's rho was calculated between the MORE scale and the Apathy Scale (AS), Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), which rates the subjective feelings of motivation.ResultsUsing the Delphi method, 17 items were incorporated into the MORE scale. According to EFA and CFA, a one-factor model was suggested. All MORE scale items demonstrated satisfactory item response, with item slopes ranging from 0.811 to 2.142, and item difficulty parameters ranging from -3.203 to 0.522. Cronbach's alpha was 0.948. Regarding test-retest reliability, a moderate correlation was found between scores at the beginning and one month after hospitalization (rho = 0.612. p < 0.001). The MORE scale showed significant correlation with AS (rho = -0.536, p < 0.001), SDS (rho = -0.347, p < 0.001), and VAS (rho = 0.536, p < 0.001), confirming the convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity, respectively.ConclusionsThe MORE scale was verified as a valid and reliable scale for evaluating stroke patients' motivation for rehabilitation.

Dataset Information

The development and validation of a new interprofessional team approach evaluation scale.

Publications

The development and validation of a new interprofessional team approach evaluation scale.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets