Dataset Information

Development of a checklist for evaluating psychiatric reports.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Performing a psychiatric interview and documenting the recorded findings in the form of a brief psychiatric report is one of the main learning goals in the psychiatric curriculum for medical students. However, observing and assessing students' reports is time consuming and there are no objective assessment tools at hand. Thus, we applied an integrative approach for designing a checklist that evaluates clinical performance, as a tool for the assessment of a psychiatric report.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature yielded no objective instrument for assessing the quality of written reports of psychiatric interviews. We used a 4-step mixed-methods approach to design a checklist as an assessment tool for psychiatric reports: 1. Development of a draft checklist, using literature research and focus group interviews; 2. Pilot testing and subsequent group discussion about modifications resulting from the pilot testing; 3. Creating a scoring system; 4. Testing for interrater-reliability, internal consistency and validity.

Results

The final checklist consisted of 36 items with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.833. Selectivity of items ranged between 0.080 and 0.796. After rater-training, an interrater-reliability of 0.96 (ICC) was achieved.

Conclusions

Our approach, which integrated published evidence and the knowledge of domain experts, resulted in a reliable and valid checklist. It offers an objective instrument to measure the ability to document psychiatric interviews. It facilitates a transparent assessment of students' learning goals with the goal of structural alignment of learning goals and assessment. We discuss ways it may additionally be used to measure the ability to perform a psychiatric interview and supplement other assessment formats.

SUBMITTER: Dreimuller N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6498494 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development of a checklist for evaluating psychiatric reports.

Dreimüller Nadine N Schenkel Stefan S Stoll Marlene M Koch Cora C Lieb Klaus K Juenger Jana J

BMC medical education 20190502 1

<h4>Background</h4>Performing a psychiatric interview and documenting the recorded findings in the form of a brief psychiatric report is one of the main learning goals in the psychiatric curriculum for medical students. However, observing and assessing students' reports is time consuming and there are no objective assessment tools at hand. Thus, we applied an integrative approach for designing a checklist that evaluates clinical performance, as a tool for the assessment of a psychiatric report.< ...[more]

PMID: 31046745

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Acute psychiatric units in general hospitals must ensure that acutely disturbed patients do not harm themselves or others, and simultaneously provide care and treatment and help patients regain control of their behavior. This led to the development of strategies for the seclusion of a patient in this state within a particular area separated from other patients in the ward. While versions of this practice have been used in different countries and settings, a systematic framework for describing the various parameters and types of seclusion interventions has not been available. The aims of the project were to develop and test a valid and reliable checklist for characterizing seclusion in inpatient psychiatric care. Methods: Development and testing of the checklist were accomplished in five stages. Staff in psychiatric units completed detailed descriptions of seclusion episodes. Elements of seclusion were identified by thematic analysis of this material, and consensus regarding these elements was achieved through a Delphi process comprising two rounds. Good content validity was ensured through the sample of seclusion episodes and the representative participants in the Delphi process. The first draft of the checklist was revised based on testing by clinicians assessing seclusion episodes. The revised checklist with six reasons for and 10 elements of seclusion was tested with different response scales, and acceptable interrater reliability was achieved. Results: The Clinical Seclusion Checklist is a brief and feasible tool measuring six reasons for seclusion, 10 elements of seclusion, and four contextual factors. It was developed through a transparent process and exhibited good content validity and acceptable interrater reliability. Conclusion: The checklist is a step toward achieving valid and clinically relevant measurements of seclusion. Its use in psychiatric units may contribute to quality assurance, more reliable statistics and comparisons across sites and periods, improved research on patients' experiences of seclusion and its effects, reduction of negative consequences of seclusion, and improvement of psychiatric intensive care.

Project description:BackgroundThe ubiquity of smartphones and mobile devices in the general population presents an unprecedented opportunity for preventative health. Not surprisingly, the use of electronic health (eHealth) resources accessed through mobile devices in clinical trials is becoming more prevalent; the selection, screening, and collation of quality eHealth resources is necessary to clinical trials using these technologies. However, the constant creation and turnover of new eHealth resources can make this task difficult. Although syntheses of eHealth resources are becoming more common, their methodological and reporting quality require improvement so as to be more accessible to nonexperts. Further, there continues to be significant variation in quality criteria employed for assessment, with no clear method for developing the included criteria. There is currently no single existing framework that addresses all six dimensions of mobile health app quality identified in Agarwal et al's recent scoping review (ie, basic descriptions of the design and usage of the resource; technical features and accessibility; health information quality; usability; evidence of impact; and user engagement and behavior change). In instances where highly systematic tactics are not possible (due to time constraints, cost, or lack of expertise), there may be value in adopting practical and pragmatic approaches to helping researchers and clinicians identify and disseminate e-resources.ObjectiveThe study aimed to create a set of guidelines (ie, a checklist) to aid the members of the Healthy Life Trajectories Initiative (HeLTI) Canada trial-a preconception randomized controlled clinical trial to prevent child obesity-to assist their efforts in searching, identifying, screening, and including selected eHealth resources for participant use in the study intervention.MethodsA framework for searching, screening, and selecting eHealth resources was adapted from the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist for systematic and scoping reviews to optimize the rigor, clarity, and transparency of the process. Details regarding searching, selecting, extracting, and assessing quality of eHealth resources are described.ResultsThis study resulted in the systematic development of a checklist consisting of 12 guiding principles, organized in a chronological versus priority sequence to aid researchers in searching, screening, and assessing the quality of various eHealth resources.ConclusionsThe eHealth Resource Checklist will assist researchers in navigating the eHealth resource space by providing a mechanism to detail their process of developing inclusion criteria, identifying search location, selecting and reviewing evidence, extracting information, evaluating the quality of the evidence, and synthesizing the extracted evidence. The overarching goal of this checklist is to provide researchers or generalists new to the eHealth field with a tool that balances pragmatism with rigor and that helps standardize the process of searching and critiquing digital material-a particularly important aspect given the recent explosion of and reliance on eHealth resources. Moreover, this checklist may be useful to other researchers and practitioners developing similar health interventions.

Project description:BackgroundPoor uptake and understanding of critical perioperative information represent a major safety risk for surgical patients. Implementing a patient-driven surgical safety checklist might enhance the way critical information is given and increase patient involvement in their own safety throughout the surgical pathway. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a Surgical Patient Safety Checklist (PASC) for use by surgical patients.MethodThis was a prospective study, involving patient representatives, multidisciplinary healthcare professionals and elective surgical patients to develop and validate PASC using consensus-building techniques in two Norwegian hospitals. A set of items intended for PASC were rated by patients and then submitted to Content Validation Index (CVI) analyses. Items of low CVI went through a Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA) Hazard Scoring process, as well as a consensus process before they were either kept or discarded. Reliability of patients' PASC ratings was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient analysis. Lastly, the face validity of PASC was investigated through focus group interviews with postoperative patients.ResultsInitial development of PASC resulted in a checklist consisting of two parts, one before (32 items) and one after surgery (26 items). After achieving consensus on the PASC content, 215 surgical patients from six surgical wards rated the items for the CVI analysis on a 1-4 scale and mostly agreed on the content. Five items were removed from the checklist, and six items were redesigned to improve PASCs' user-friendliness. The total Scale-level index/Average (S-CVI/Ave) before revision was 0.83 and 0.86 for pre- and post-operative PASC items, respectively. Following revision, these increased to 0.86 and 0.93, respectively. The PASC items reliability score was 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.98). The qualitative assessment identified that patients who used PASC felt more in control of their situation; this was achieved when PASC was given to them at what they felt was the right time and healthcare professionals took part in its usage.ConclusionMultidisciplinary perioperative care staff and surgical patients agreed upon PASC content, the checklist ratings were reliable, and qualitative assessment suggested good face validity. PASC appears to be a usable and valid checklist for elective surgical patients across specialties.

Dataset Information

Development of a checklist for evaluating psychiatric reports.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Development of a checklist for evaluating psychiatric reports.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets