The Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire: item reduction and scoring using inpatient and accident and emergency data in England

Evaluation of a COVID-19 fundamental nursing care guideline versus usual care: The COVID-NURSE cluster randomized controlled trial

AIM

To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID-19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN

Parallel two-arm, cluster-level randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID-19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient-reported co-primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention-to-treat analyses.

RESULTS

We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570-572 (98.1%-98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between-group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between-group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co-primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the 'other' ethnicity subgroup.

CONCLUSION

We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required.

IMPACT

Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care.

REPORTING METHOD

CONSORT and CONSERVE.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID-19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings.

Validation and Translation of the Relational Aspect of Care Questionnaire into the Malay Language (RAC-QM) to Evaluate the Compassionate Care Level of Healthcare Workers from the Patient's Perspective

BACKGROUND

Compassionate care has been increasingly highlighted in the past few decades worldwide, including in Malaysia. Despite acknowledging its importance, Malaysia still lacks a validated tool that can be used to assess the level of compassionate care from the patient's perspective. Therefore, this study aims to validate and translate the Relational Aspect of Care Questionnaire (RAC-Q) into the Malay language.

METHODS

Permission to use and translate the original RAC-Q into the Malay language was obtained. The RAC-Q was then translated into the Malay language following the 10 steps proposed for the translation of a patient-reported outcome questionnaire. A pretest was conducted based on 30 inpatients to assess the appropriateness and clarity of the finalized translated questionnaire. A cross-sectional study was performed based on 138 inpatients from six adult wards of a teaching hospital so as to validate the translated questionnaire. The data were analyzed using R software version 4.1.3 (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria, 2020). The results were presented descriptively as numbers and percentages or means and standard deviations. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed using robust estimators.

RESULTS

The analysis showed that the measurement model of the RAC-Q Malay version (RAC-QM) fits well based on several fit indices: a standardized factor loading range from 0.40 to 0.73, comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.917, Tucker-Lewis fit index (TLI) of 0.904, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0.06, and a standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of 0.073. It has good reliability, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.857 and a composite ratio of 0.857.

CONCLUSION

The RAC-QM demonstrated good psychometric properties and is valid and reliable based on the confirmatory analysis, and it can thus be used as a tool for evaluating the level of compassionate care in Malaysia.

COVID-NURSE: evaluation of a fundamental nursing care protocol compared with care as usual on experience of care for noninvasively ventilated patients in hospital with the SARS-CoV-2 virus-protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Patient experience of nursing care is correlated with safety, clinical effectiveness, care quality, treatment outcomes and service use. Effective nursing care includes actions to develop nurse-patient relationships and deliver physical and psychosocial care to patients. The high risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus compromises nursing care. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, leading to potential variations in patient experience, outcomes, quality and costs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: we aim to recruit 840 in-patient participants treated for infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus from 14 UK hospitals, to a cluster randomised controlled trial, with embedded process and economic evaluations, of care as usual and a fundamental nursing care protocol addressing specific areas of physical, relational and psychosocial nursing care where potential variation may occur, compared with care as usual. Our coprimary outcomes are patient-reported experience (Quality from the Patients' Perspective; Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire); secondary outcomes include care quality (pressure injuries, falls, medication errors); functional ability (Barthell Index); treatment outcomes (WHO Clinical Progression Scale); depression Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), anxiety General Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2), health utility (EQ5D) and nurse-reported outcomes (Measure of Moral Distress for Health Care Professionals). For our primary analysis, we will use a standard generalised linear mixed-effect model adjusting for ethnicity of the patient sample and research intensity at cluster level. We will also undertake a planned subgroup analysis to compare the impact of patient-level ethnicity on our primary and secondary outcomes and will undertake process and economic evaluations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Research governance and ethical approvals are from the UK National Health Service Health Research Authority Research Ethics Service. Dissemination will be open access through peer-reviewed scientific journals, study website, press and online media, including free online training materials on the Open University's FutureLearn web platform.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN13177364; Pre-results.

Sequential screening for depression in humanitarian emergencies: a validation study of the Patient Health Questionnaire among Syrian refugees

BACKGROUND

Despite the need for mental health surveillance in humanitarian emergencies, there is a lack of validated instruments. This study evaluated a sequential screening process for major depressive disorder (MDD) using the two- and eight-item Patient Health Questionnaires (PHQ-2 and PHQ-8, respectively).

METHODS

This study analyzed data collected during a cross-sectional survey in a Syrian refugee camp in Greece (n = 135). The response rate for each instrument was assessed, and response burden was calculated as the number of items completed. The sequential screening process was simulated to replicate the MDD classifications captured if the PHQ-2 was used to narrow the population receiving the full PHQ-8 assessment. All respondents were screened using the PHQ-2. Only respondents scoring ≥ 2 are considered at risk for symptoms of MDD and complete the remaining six items. The positive and negative percent agreement of this sequential screening process were evaluated.

RESULTS

The PHQ-2, PHQ-2/8 sequential screening process, and PHQ-8 were completed by 91%, 87%, and 84% of respondents, respectively. The sequential screening process had a positive percent agreement of 89% and a negative percent agreement of 100%, and eliminated the need to complete the full PHQ-8 scale for 34 (25%) respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of the sequential screening approach for the classification of MDD presented here are twofold: preserving classification accuracy relative to the PHQ-2 alone while reducing the response burden of the PHQ-8. This sequential screening approach is a pragmatic strategy for streamlining MDD surveillance in humanitarian emergencies.

Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10

OBJECTIVES

There is growing evidence that patients can provide feedback on the safety of their care. The 44-item Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS) was developed for this purpose. While valid and reliable, the length of this questionnaire makes it potentially challenging for routine use. Our study aimed to produce revised, shortened versions of PMOS (PMOS-30 and PMOS-10), which retained the psychometric properties of the longer version.

PARTICIPANTS

To produce a shortened diagnostic measure, we analysed data from 2002 patients who completed PMOS-44, and examined the reliability of the revised measure (PMOS-30) in a sample of 751 patients. To produce a brief standalone measure, we again analysed data from 2002 patients who completed PMOS-44, and tested the reliability and validity of the brief standalone measure (PMOS-10) in a sample of 165 patients.

METHODS

The process of shortening the questionnaire involved a combination of secondary data analysis (eg, Standard Deviation and inter-item correlations) and a consensus group exercise to produce PMOS-30 and examine face validity. Analysis of PMOS-30 data examined reliability (eg, Cronbach's alpha). Further secondary data analysis (ie, corrected item-total correlations) produced PMOS-10, and primary data collection assessed its reliability and validity (eg, Cronbach's alpha, analysis of variance).

RESULTS

Fourteen items were removed to produce PMOS-30 and the percentage of negatively worded items was reduced from 57% to 33%. PMOS-30 demonstrated good internal reliability (α=0.89). The 10 items with the highest corrected item-total correlations across both PMOS-44 and PMOS-30 composed PMOS-10. PMOS-10 had good internal reliability (α=0.79), demonstrated convergent validity; however, discriminant validity was not established.

CONCLUSIONS

Two revised, shortened versions of the original PMOS-44 (PMOS-30 and PMOS-10) were produced to capture patient feedback about safety in hospital. The measures demonstrated good reliability and validity, and preserved the psychometric properties of the original measure.