Development and psychometric testing of a scale assessing the sharing of medical information and interprofessional communication: the CSI scale

BMC Health Services Research

Leïla Moret²  Julie Coutherut¹  Christelle Delmas³  Emmanuelle Anthoine² 

[1] Centre Fédératif Prévention Dépistage, University Hospital, Bâtiment Le Tourville, Nantes Cedex 44093, France;EA 4275 SPHERE: bioStatistics, Pharmacoepidemiology and Human Sciences Research team, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Nantes, Rue Gaston Veil, Nantes 44000, France;PHU11, Public Health Department, University Hospital, Saint-Jacques Hospital, 85, rue Saint-Jacques, Nantes Cedex 44093, France

关键词: Scale validation;    Psychometric properties;    Questionnaire;    Patient safety;    Patient information;    Interprofessional communication;   

Others  :  1133270
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6963-14-126

 received in 2013-04-16, accepted in 2014-03-04,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Interprofessional collaboration is essential in creating a safer patient environment. It includes the need to develop communication and coordination between professionals, implying a better sharing of medical information. Several questionnaires exist in the literature, but none of them have been developed in the French context. The objective was to develop and test the psychometric properties of the communication and sharing information (CSI) scale which assesses specifically interprofessional communication, especially the sharing of medical information and the effectiveness of communication between members of the team.

Methods

The questionnaire construction process used a literature review and involved a panel of voluntary professionals. A list of 32 items explored the quality of shared information delivered to patients and the effectiveness of interprofessional communication. The study was conducted in 16 voluntary units in a University Hospital (France), which included medical, surgical, obstetrics, intensive care, pediatrics, oncology and rehabilitation care. The scale-development process comprised an exploratory principal component analysis, Cronbach’s α-coefficients and structural equation modeling (SEM).

Results

From these 16 units, a total of 503 health professionals took part in the study. Among them, 23.9% were physicians (n = 120), 43.9% nurses (n = 221) and 32.2% nurse assistants (n = 162).

The validated questionnaire comprised 13 items and 3 dimensions relative to “the sharing of medical information” (5 items), “communication between physicians” (4 items) and “communication between nurses and nurse assistants” (4 items). The 3 dimensions accounted for 63.7% of the variance of the final questionnaire. Their respective Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.80, 0.87 and 0.81. SEM confirmed the existence of the 3 latent dimensions but the best characteristics were obtained with a hierarchical model including the three latent factors and a global “communication between healthcare professionals” latent factor, bringing the 8 items linked to communication together. All the structural coefficients were highly significant (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

This self-perception CSI scale assessing several facets of interprofessional communication is the first one developed in the French context. The development study exhibited excellent psychometric properties. Further psychometric analysis is needed to establish test-retest reliability, sensibility to change and concurrent validity.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Anthoine et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Krogstad U, Hofoss D, Hjortdahl P: Doctor and nurse perception of inter-professional co-operation in hospitals. Int J Qual Health Care 2004, 16:491-497.
• [2]Cook RI, Render M, Woods DD: Gaps in the continuity of care and progress on patient safety. BMJ 2000, 320:791-794.
• [3]Firth-Cozens J: Cultures for improving patient safety through learning: the role of teamwork. Qual Health Care 2001, 10(Suppl 2):ii26-ii31.
• [4]Firth-Cozens J: Multidisciplinary teamwork: the good, bad, and everything in between. Qual Health Care 2001, 10:65-66.
• [5]Baggs JG, Schmitt MH, Mushlin AI, Mitchell PH, Eldredge DH, Oakes D, Hutson AD: Association between nurse-physician collaboration and patient outcomes in three intensive care units. Crit Care Med 1999, 27:1991-1998.
• [6]Manias E, Street A: Nurse-doctor interactions during critical care ward rounds. J Clin Nurs 2001, 10:442-450.
• [7]Thomas EJ, Sexton JB, Helmreich RL: Discrepant attitudes about teamwork among critical care nurses and physicians. Crit Care Med 2003, 31:956-959.
• [8]Vahey DC, Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Clarke SP, Vargas D: Nurse burnout and patient satisfaction. Med Care 2004, 42:II57-II66.
• [9]Shortell SM, O’Brien JL, Carman JM, Foster RW, Hughes EF, Boerstler H, O’Connor EJ: Assessing the impact of continuous quality improvement/total quality management: concept versus implementation. Health Serv Res 1995, 30:377-401.
• [10]Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Sochalski J: Hospital organisation and outcomes. Qual Health Care 1998, 7:222-226.
• [11]Fagin CM: Collaboration between nurses and physicians: no longer a choice. Acad Med 1992, 67:295-303.
• [12]Rosenstein AH, O’Daniel M: Disruptive behavior and clinical outcomes: perceptions of nurses and physicians. Am J Nurs 2005, 105:54-55.
• [13]Baggs JG, Ryan SA, Phelps CE, Richeson JF, Johnson JE: The association between interdisciplinary collaboration and patient outcomes in a medical intensive care unit. Heart Lung 1992, 21:18-24.
• [14]Henneman EA: Nurse-physician collaboration: a poststructuralist view. J Adv Nurs 1995, 22:359-363.
• [15]Baggs JG: Development of an instrument to measure collaboration and satisfaction about care decisions. J Adv Nurs 1994, 20:176-182.
• [16]Orchard CA, Bainbridge L: A National interprofessional competency framework. 36th edition. 2010.
• [17]Orchard CA, Curran V, Kabene S: Creating a Culture for Interdisciplinary Collaborative Professional Practice. Online: Medical Education; 2005:10.
• [18]Puntillo KA, McAdam JL: Communication between physicians and nurses as a target for improving end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: challenges and opportunities for moving forward. Crit Care Med 2006, 34:S332-S340.
• [19]Cadogan MP, Franzi C, Osterweil D, Hill T: Barriers to effective communication in skilled nursing facilities: differences in perception between nurses and physicians. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999, 47:71-75.
• [20]MacKay RC, Matsuno K, Mulligan J: Communication problems between doctors and nurses. Qual Assur Health Care 1991, 3:11-19.
• [21]Casey N, Smith R: Bringing nurses and doctors closer together. BMJ 1997, 314:617-618.
• [22]Moret L, Rochedreux A, Chevalier S, Lombrail P, Gasquet I: Medical information delivered to patients: discrepancies concerning roles as perceived by physicians and nurses set against patient satisfaction. Patient Educ Couns 2008, 70:94-101.
• [23]Copnell B, Johnston L, Harrison D, Wilson A, Robson A, Mulcahy C, Ramudu L, McDonnell G, Best C: Doctors’ and nurses’ perceptions of interdisciplinary collaboration in the NICU, and the impact of a neonatal nurse practitioner model of practice. J Clin Nurs 2004, 13:105-113.
• [24]Minvielle E, Dervaux B, Retbi A, Aegerter P, Boumendil A, Jars-Guincestre MC, Tenaillon A, Guidet B: Culture, organization, and management in intensive care: construction and validation of a multidimensional questionnaire. J Crit care 2005, 20:126-138.
• [25]Shortell SM, Rousseau DM, Gillies RR, Devers KJ, Simons TL: Organizational assessment in intensive care units (ICUs): construct development, reliability, and validity of the ICU nurse-physician questionnaire. Med Care 1991, 29:709-726.
• [26]Hojat M, Herman MW: Developing an instrument to measure attitudes toward nurses: preliminary psychometric findings. Psychol Rep 1985, 56:571-579.
• [27]Dougherty MB, Larson E: A review of instruments measuring nurse-physician collaboration. J Nurs Adm 2005, 35:244-253.
• [28]Dougherty MB, Larson EL: The nurse-nurse collaboration scale. J Nurs Adm 2010, 40:17-25.
• [29]Orchard CA, King GA, Khalili H, Bezzina MB: Assessment of interprofessional team collaboration scale (AITCS): development and testing of the instrument. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2012, 32:58-67.
• [30]Ushiro R: Nurse-physician collaboration scale: development and psychometric testing. J Adv Nurs 2009, 65:1497-1508.
• [31]Kenaszchuk C, Reeves S, Nicholas D, Zwarenstein M: Validity and reliability of a multiple-group measurement scale for interprofessional collaboration. BMC Health Serv Res 2010, 10:83. BioMed Central Full Text
• [32]Fayers PM, Machin D: Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. 2nd edition. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2007.
• [33]Labarere J, Francois P, Auquier P, Robert C, Fourny M: Development of a French inpatient satisfaction questionnaire. Int J Qual Health Care 2001, 13:99-108.
• [34]Nunnaly JC: Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
• [35]Campbell DT, Fiske DW: Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 1959, 56:81-105.
• [36]Cronbach LJ: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16:297-334.
• [37]Hoyle RH: Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications; 1995.
• [38]Wold H: Soft modeling: the basic design and some extensions. Volume 2. Edited by Jöreskog KG, Weld H. Amsterdam, North-Holland; 1982.
• [39]Fornell C, Laker DF: Evaluating structural Equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error : algebra and statistics. J Mark Res 1981, 18:39-50.
• [40]Coste J, Fermanian J, Venot A: Methodological and statistical problems in the construction of composite measurement scales: a survey of six medical and epidemiological journals. Stat Med 1995, 14:331-345.
• [41]Adams A, Bond S, Arber S: Development and validation of scales to measure organisational features of acute hospital wards. Int J Nurs Stud 1995, 32:612-627.