Cargando…

Developing content for a process-of-care checklist for use in intensive care units: a dual-method approach to establishing construct validity

BACKGROUND: In the intensive care unit (ICU), checklists can be used to support the delivery of quality and consistent clinical care. While studies have reported important benefits for clinical checklists in this context, lack of formal validity testing in the literature prompted the study aim; to d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Conroy, Karena M, Elliott, Doug, Burrell, Anthony R
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852734/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24088360
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-380
_version_ 1782478713342918656
author Conroy, Karena M
Elliott, Doug
Burrell, Anthony R
author_facet Conroy, Karena M
Elliott, Doug
Burrell, Anthony R
author_sort Conroy, Karena M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In the intensive care unit (ICU), checklists can be used to support the delivery of quality and consistent clinical care. While studies have reported important benefits for clinical checklists in this context, lack of formal validity testing in the literature prompted the study aim; to develop relevant ‘process-of-care’ checklist statements, using rigorously applied and reported methods that were clear, concise and reflective of the current evidence base. These statements will be sufficiently instructive for use by physicians during ICU clinical rounds. METHODS: A dual-method approach was utilized; semi-structured interviews with local clinicians; and rounds of surveys to an expert Delphi panel. The interviews helped determine checklist item inclusion/exclusion prior to the first round Delphi survey. The panel for the modified-Delphi technique consisted of local intensivists and a state-wide ICU quality committee. Minimum standards for consensus agreement were set prior to the distribution of questionnaires, and rounds of surveys continued until consensus was achieved. RESULTS: A number of important issues such as overlap with other initiatives were identified in interviews with clinicians and integrated into the Delphi questionnaire, but no additional checklist items were suggested, demonstrating adequate checklist coverage sourced from the literature. These items were verified by local clinicians as being relevant to ICU and important elements of care that required checking during ward rounds. Two rounds of Delphi surveys were required to reach consensus on nine checklist statements: nutrition, pain management, sedation, deep vein thrombosis and stress ulcer prevention, head-of-bed elevation, blood glucose levels, readiness to extubate, and medications. CONCLUSIONS: Statements were developed as the most clear, concise, evidence-informed and instructive statements for use during clinical rounds in an ICU. Initial evidence in support of the checklist’s construct validity was established prior to further prospective evaluation in the same ICU.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3852734
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38527342013-12-06 Developing content for a process-of-care checklist for use in intensive care units: a dual-method approach to establishing construct validity Conroy, Karena M Elliott, Doug Burrell, Anthony R BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: In the intensive care unit (ICU), checklists can be used to support the delivery of quality and consistent clinical care. While studies have reported important benefits for clinical checklists in this context, lack of formal validity testing in the literature prompted the study aim; to develop relevant ‘process-of-care’ checklist statements, using rigorously applied and reported methods that were clear, concise and reflective of the current evidence base. These statements will be sufficiently instructive for use by physicians during ICU clinical rounds. METHODS: A dual-method approach was utilized; semi-structured interviews with local clinicians; and rounds of surveys to an expert Delphi panel. The interviews helped determine checklist item inclusion/exclusion prior to the first round Delphi survey. The panel for the modified-Delphi technique consisted of local intensivists and a state-wide ICU quality committee. Minimum standards for consensus agreement were set prior to the distribution of questionnaires, and rounds of surveys continued until consensus was achieved. RESULTS: A number of important issues such as overlap with other initiatives were identified in interviews with clinicians and integrated into the Delphi questionnaire, but no additional checklist items were suggested, demonstrating adequate checklist coverage sourced from the literature. These items were verified by local clinicians as being relevant to ICU and important elements of care that required checking during ward rounds. Two rounds of Delphi surveys were required to reach consensus on nine checklist statements: nutrition, pain management, sedation, deep vein thrombosis and stress ulcer prevention, head-of-bed elevation, blood glucose levels, readiness to extubate, and medications. CONCLUSIONS: Statements were developed as the most clear, concise, evidence-informed and instructive statements for use during clinical rounds in an ICU. Initial evidence in support of the checklist’s construct validity was established prior to further prospective evaluation in the same ICU. BioMed Central 2013-10-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3852734/ /pubmed/24088360 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-380 Text en Copyright © 2013 Conroy et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Conroy, Karena M
Elliott, Doug
Burrell, Anthony R
Developing content for a process-of-care checklist for use in intensive care units: a dual-method approach to establishing construct validity
title Developing content for a process-of-care checklist for use in intensive care units: a dual-method approach to establishing construct validity
title_full Developing content for a process-of-care checklist for use in intensive care units: a dual-method approach to establishing construct validity
title_fullStr Developing content for a process-of-care checklist for use in intensive care units: a dual-method approach to establishing construct validity
title_full_unstemmed Developing content for a process-of-care checklist for use in intensive care units: a dual-method approach to establishing construct validity
title_short Developing content for a process-of-care checklist for use in intensive care units: a dual-method approach to establishing construct validity
title_sort developing content for a process-of-care checklist for use in intensive care units: a dual-method approach to establishing construct validity
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852734/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24088360
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-380
work_keys_str_mv AT conroykarenam developingcontentforaprocessofcarechecklistforuseinintensivecareunitsadualmethodapproachtoestablishingconstructvalidity
AT elliottdoug developingcontentforaprocessofcarechecklistforuseinintensivecareunitsadualmethodapproachtoestablishingconstructvalidity
AT burrellanthonyr developingcontentforaprocessofcarechecklistforuseinintensivecareunitsadualmethodapproachtoestablishingconstructvalidity