Dataset Information

Validation of a 5-Item Tool to Measure Patient Assessment of Clinician Compassion in Hospitals.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We previously validated a 5-item compassion measure to assess patient experience of clinician compassion in the outpatient setting. However, currently, there is no validated and feasible method for health care systems to measure patient experience of clinician compassion in the inpatient setting across multiple hospitals.

Objective

To test if the 5-item compassion measure can validly and distinctly measure patient assessment of physician and nurse compassion in the inpatient setting.

Design

Cross-sectional study between July 1 and July 31, 2020, in a US health care network of 91 community hospitals across 16 states consisting of approximately 15,000 beds.

Patients

Adult patients who had an inpatient hospital stay and completed the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey.

Measurements

We adapted the original 5-item compassion measure to be specific for physicians, as well as for nurses. We disseminated both measures with the HCAHPS survey and used confirmatory factor analysis for validity testing. We tested reliability using Cronbach's alpha, as well as convergent validity with patient assessment of physician and nursing communication and overall hospital rating questions from HCAHPS.

Results

We analyzed 4756 patient responses. Confirmatory factor analysis found good fit for two distinct constructs (i.e., physician and nurse compassion). Both measures demonstrated good internal consistency (alpha > 0.90) and good convergent validity but reflected a construct (compassionate care) distinct from what is currently captured in HCAHPS.

Conclusion

We validated two 5-item tools that can distinctly measure patient experience of physician and nurse compassion for use in the inpatient hospital setting in conjunction with HCAHPS.

SUBMITTER: Roberts BW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8034051 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceClinician compassion is a vital element of health care quality. Currently, there appears to be no validated and feasible method for health care organizations to measure patient assessment of clinician compassion on a large scale.ObjectiveTo develop and validate a tool for measuring patient assessment of clinician compassion that can be used in conjunction with the Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS) survey.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective cohort study took place from June 1 to August 30, 2018, at a US academic health care system among a pilot cohort consisting of 3325 adult patients and a validation cohort consisting of 3483 adult patients, both of whom had an outpatient clinic visit and completed the CG-CAHPS survey.Main outcomes and measurementsAfter a comprehensive literature review, 12 candidate survey items were developed. Face and construct validity were performed. Candidate items were disseminated to patients in conjunction with the CG-CAHPS survey in a series of 2 studies: (1) exploratory factor analysis in one cohort to determine the factor structure and the most parsimonious set of items; and (2) validity testing in a second cohort using confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability was tested using Cronbach α. Convergent validity was tested with patient assessment of clinician communication and overall satisfaction questions from CG-CAHPS survey.ResultsOverall, 6493 patient responses were analyzed. The mean (SD) age was 60 (15) years, 4239 patients (65.3%) were women, and 5079 (78.2%) were white. Exploratory factor analyses identified a 5-item compassion measure to be the most parsimonious. Confirmatory factor analyses found good fit. The compassion measure demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.94) and convergent validity (clinician communication: ρ = 0.44; overall satisfaction: ρ = 0.52) but reflected a patient experience domain (compassionate care) distinct from what is currently captured in the CG-CAHPS survey.Conclusions and relevanceA simple 5-item tool to measure patient assessment of clinician compassion was developed and validated for use in conjunction with CG-CAHPS survey.

Project description:ObjectivesCompassion is a key indicator of quality care that is reportedly eroding from patients' care experience. While the need to assess compassion is recognised, valid and reliable measures are lacking. This study developed and validated a clinically informed, psychometrically rigorous, patient-reported compassion measure.DesignData were collected from participants living with life-limiting illnesses over two study phases across four care settings (acute care, hospice, long term care (LTC) and homecare). In phase 1, data were analysed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), with the final items analysed via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in phase 2. The Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale (SCCCS), the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS-r) and Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire (PPEQ) were also administered in phase 2 to assess convergent and divergent validity.Setting and participants633 participants were recruited over two study phases. In the EFA phase, a 54-item version of the measure was administered to 303 participants, with 330 participants being administered the final 15-item measure in the CFA phase.ResultsBoth EFA and CFA confirmed compassion as a single factor construct with factor loadings for the 15-item measure ranging from 0.76 to 0.86, with excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient range: 0.74-0.89) and excellent internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha of 0.96). The measure was positively correlated with the SCCCS (r=0.75, p<0.001) and PPEQ (r=0.60, p<0.001). Participants reporting higher experiences of compassion had significantly greater well-being and lower depression on the ESAS-r. Patients in acute care and hospice reported significantly greater experiences of compassion than LTC residents.ConclusionsThere is strong initial psychometric evidence for the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire (SCQ) as a valid and reliable patient-reported compassion measure. The SCQ provides healthcare providers, settings and administrators the means to routinely measure patients experiences of compassion, while providing researchers a robust measure to conduct high-quality research.

Project description:BackgroundClinicians and healthcare staff report high levels of burnout. Two common burnout assessments are the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and a single-item, self-defined burnout measure. Relatively little is known about how the measures compare.ObjectiveTo identify the sensitivity, specificity, and concurrent validity of the self-defined burnout measure compared to the more established MBI measure.DesignCross-sectional survey (November 2016-January 2017).ParticipantsFour hundred forty-four primary care clinicians and 606 staff from three San Francisco Aarea healthcare systems.Main measuresThe MBI measure, calculated from a high score on either the emotional exhaustion or cynicism subscale, and a single-item measure of self-defined burnout. Concurrent validity was assessed using a validated, 7-item team culture scale as reported by Willard-Grace et al. (J Am Board Fam Med 27(2):229-38, 2014) and a standard question about workplace atmosphere as reported by Rassolian et al. (JAMA Intern Med 177(7):1036-8, 2017) and Linzer et al. (Ann Intern Med 151(1):28-36, 2009).Key resultsSimilar to other nationally representative burnout estimates, 52% of clinicians (95% CI: 47-57%) and 46% of staff (95% CI: 42-50%) reported high MBI emotional exhaustion or high MBI cynicism. In contrast, 29% of clinicians (95% CI: 25-33%) and 31% of staff (95% CI: 28-35%) reported "definitely burning out" or more severe symptoms on the self-defined burnout measure. The self-defined measure's sensitivity to correctly identify MBI-assessed burnout was 50.4% for clinicians and 58.6% for staff; specificity was 94.7% for clinicians and 92.3% for staff. Area under the receiver operator curve was 0.82 for clinicians and 0.81 for staff. Team culture and atmosphere were significantly associated with both self-defined burnout and the MBI, confirming concurrent validity.ConclusionsPoint estimates of burnout notably differ between the self-defined and MBI measures. Compared to the MBI, the self-defined burnout measure misses half of high-burnout clinicians and more than 40% of high-burnout staff. The self-defined burnout measure has a low response burden, is free to administer, and yields similar associations across two burnout predictors from prior studies. However, the self-defined burnout and MBI measures are not interchangeable.

Project description:BackgroundThe Patient Activation Measure (PAM) is a recognized measure of how active patients are in their care, and has been translated into several languages and cultural contexts. Patient activity, self-care, and health literacy have become increasingly important aspects of health care, and thus reliable measures of these are needed. However, a Swedish translation of PAM is currently lacking. The aim of the study was to translate and assess the validity and reliability of the Swedish PAM-13.MethodsA self-report questionnaire was handed out to 521 patients at ten medical, geriatric, and surgical wards, and one Virtual Health Room. The Rasch model was employed, using the partial credit model, to assess the functioning of the PAM scale, item fit, targeting, unidimensionality, local independence, differential item functioning (DIF), and person-separation index. Evidence of substantive, content, structural, and external validity was examined.ResultsOf the 521 patients who were consecutively handed a questionnaire, 248 consented to participate, yielding a response rate of 47.6%. The average measure for each category advanced monotonically. The difficulty of the PAM items ranged from -?1.55 to 1.26. The infit and outfit values for the individual items were acceptable. Items 1, 2, and 4 showed disordered thresholds. The mean person location was 1.48 (SD?=?1.66). The person-item map revealed that there were no item representations at the top of the scale. The evidence for unidimensionality was ambiguous and response dependency was seen in some items. DIF was found for age. The person separation index was 0.85.ConclusionThe Swedish PAM-13 was reliable, but was not conclusively found to represent one underlying construct. It seems that the Swedish PAM-13 lacks strong evidence for substantive, content, and structural validity. Although valid and reliable measures of ability for activation in self-care among patients are highly warranted, we recommend further development of PAM-13 before application in everyday clinical care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Leakage is a major concern for people who use a stoma, but people's experience and its impact is not well understood. This study aimed to establish a definition of leakage through clinical and user input. This information was used to develop and validate a new measurement tool to understand the impact of leakage for people using a stoma appliance, in the UK, US, France, and Denmark. METHODS:Participants were recruited from a panel of users, hosted by Coloplast, that includes people who currently use Coloplast products. Six clinicians and 41 users took part in concept elicitation interviews. The qualitative findings were used to draft items. A panel of clinical experts was organized to develop and validate items (N =?6). Cognitive debrief interviews were conducted with five users in each country, which resulted in removing some items and revising the measure. A psychometric validation was conducted with 340 people in four countries whereby participants were asked to complete a series of measures online. Full psychometric analyses including validity and reliability were conducted. RESULTS:A final tool was established consisting of three domains related to the burden of leakage: "Emotional impact," "Usual and social activities," and "Coping and control." Convergent validity was evaluated by benchmarking to existing health-related quality of life instruments (domains of SF-36 and Ostomy-Q). This showed high correlation between domains of the leakage tool and other measures, in particular for the Emotional impact domain when compared with SF-36 Emotional well-being and Ostomy-Q Confidence domain (p <?0.001). Coping and control correlated moderately well with most PROs tested for except the physical functioning domains, which showed only modest correlation (p <?0.001). Usual and social activities correlated equally well with all domains. Internal consistency was high for Emotional impact and Usual and social activities (>?0.92). CONCLUSION:The study highlights how users define leakage and its impact in a way that is meaningful to them. This information has been used to develop an instrument to measure leakage which can potentially be used by clinicians and researchers. The instrument demonstrated evidence supporting its reliability and validity as an outcome measure to assess the impact of leakage in stoma care.