Literature DB >> 22362785

Development and validation of the Consumer Quality index instrument to measure the experience and priority of chronic dialysis patients.

Sabine N van der Veer1, Kitty J Jager, Ella Visserman, Robert J Beekman, Els W Boeschoten, Nicolette F de Keizer, Lara Heuveling, Karien Stronks, Onyebuchi A Arah.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient experience is an established indicator of quality of care. Validated tools that measure both experiences and priorities are lacking for chronic dialysis care, hampering identification of negative experiences that patients actually rate important.
METHODS: We developed two Consumer Quality (CQ) index questionnaires, one for in-centre haemodialysis (CHD) and the other for peritoneal dialysis and home haemodialysis (PHHD) care. The instruments were validated using exploratory factor analyses, reliability analysis of identified scales and assessing the association between reliable scales and global ratings. We investigated opportunities for improvement by combining suboptimal experience with patient priority.
RESULTS: Sixteen dialysis centres participated in our study. The pilot CQ index for CHD care consisted of 71 questions. Based on data of 592 respondents, we identified 42 core experience items in 10 scales with Cronbach's α ranging from 0.38 to 0.88; five were reliable (α ≥ 0.70). The instrument identified information on centres' fire procedures as the aspect of care exhibiting the biggest opportunity for improvement. The pilot CQ index PHHD comprised 56 questions. The response of 248 patients yielded 31 core experience items in nine scales with Cronbach's α ranging between 0.53 and 0.85; six were reliable. Information on kidney transplantation during pre-dialysis showed most room for improvement. However, for both types of care, opportunities for improvement were mostly limited.
CONCLUSIONS: The CQ index reliably and validly captures dialysis patient experience. Overall, most care aspects showed limited room for improvement, mainly because patients participating in our study rated their experience to be optimal. To evaluate items with high priority, but with which relatively few patients have experience, more qualitative instruments should be considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22362785     DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfs023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nephrol Dial Transplant        ISSN: 0931-0509            Impact factor:   5.992


  13 in total

1.  A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures.

Authors:  Claudia Bull; Joshua Byrnes; Ruvini Hettiarachchi; Martin Downes
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-06-19       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 2.  A Thematic Synthesis of the Experiences of Adults Living with Hemodialysis.

Authors:  Claire Reid; Julie Seymour; Colin Jones
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 8.237

3.  Delivering direct patient care in the haemodialysis unit: a focused ethnographic study of care delivery.

Authors:  Alison F Wood; Jennifer Tocher; Sheila Rodgers
Journal:  J Res Nurs       Date:  2019-12-04

Review 4.  Measuring patient experience in dialysis: a new paradigm of quality assessment.

Authors:  Connie M Rhee; Steven M Brunelli; Lalita Subramanian; Francesca Tentori
Journal:  J Nephrol       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 3.902

5.  Development and Content Validity of a Patient-Reported Experience Measure for Home Dialysis.

Authors:  Matthew B Rivara; Todd Edwards; Donald Patrick; Lisa Anderson; Jonathan Himmelfarb; Rajnish Mehrotra
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2021-03-30       Impact factor: 8.237

6.  How to routinely collect data on patient-reported outcome and experience measures in renal registries in Europe: an expert consensus meeting.

Authors:  Kate Breckenridge; Hillary L Bekker; Elizabeth Gibbons; Sabine N van der Veer; Denise Abbott; Serge Briançon; Ron Cullen; Liliana Garneata; Kitty J Jager; Kjersti Lønning; Wendy Metcalfe; Rachael L Morton; Fliss E M Murtagh; Karl Prutz; Susan Robertson; Ivan Rychlik; Steffan Schon; Linda Sharp; Elodie Speyer; Francesca Tentori; Fergus J Caskey
Journal:  Nephrol Dial Transplant       Date:  2015-05-16       Impact factor: 5.992

7.  Validation of an instrument for measuring satisfaction of patients undergoing hemodialysis.

Authors:  Mauricio Sanabria-Arenas; Julia Tobón- Marín; María Claudia Certuche-Quintana; Ricardo Sánchez-Pedraza
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  Improving clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction among patients with coronary artery disease: an example of enhancing regional integration between a cardiac centre and a referring hospital.

Authors:  Dennis van Veghel; Mohamed Soliman-Hamad; Daniela N Schulz; Bernard Cost; Timothy A Simmers; Lukas R C Dekker
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Patients' perceptions of information and education for renal replacement therapy: an independent survey by the European Kidney Patients' Federation on information and support on renal replacement therapy.

Authors:  Wim Van Biesen; Sabine N van der Veer; Mark Murphey; Olga Loblova; Simon Davies
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Quality of pharmaceutical care at the pharmacy counter: patients' experiences versus video observation.

Authors:  Ellen S Koster; Lyda Blom; Marloes R Overbeeke; Daphne Philbert; Marcia Vervloet; Laura Koopman; Liset van Dijk
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2016-03-23       Impact factor: 2.711

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.