A Tool to Assess the Trustworthiness of Evidence-Based Point-of-Care Information for Health Care Professionals (CAPOCI): Design and Validation Study

BACKGROUND

User-friendly information at the point of care for health care professionals should be well structured, rapidly accessible, comprehensive, and trustworthy. The reliability of information and the associated methodological process must be clear. There is no standard tool to evaluate the trustworthiness of such point-of-care (POC) information.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to develop and validate a new tool for assessment of trustworthiness of evidence-based POC resources to enhance the quality of POC resources and facilitate evidence-based practice.

METHODS

We designed the Critical Appraisal of Point-of-Care Information (CAPOCI) tool based on the criteria important for assessment of trustworthiness of POC information, reported in a previously published review. A group of health care professionals and methodologists (the authors of this paper) defined criteria for the CAPOCI tool in an iterative process of discussion and pilot testing until consensus was reached. In the next step, all criteria were subject to content validation with a Delphi study. We invited an international panel of 10 experts to rate their agreement with the relevance and wording of the criteria and to give feedback. Consensus was reached when 70% of the experts agreed. When no consensus was reached, we reformulated the criteria based on the experts' comments for a next round of the Delphi study. This process was repeated until consensus was reached for each criterion. In a last step, the interrater reliability of the CAPOCI tool was calculated with a 2-tailed Kendall tau correlation coefficient to quantify the agreement between 2 users who piloted the CAPOCI tool on 5 POC resources. Two scoring systems were tested: a 3-point ordinal scale and a 7-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

After validation, the CAPOCI tool was designed with 11 criteria that focused on methodological quality and author-related information. The criteria assess authorship, literature search, use of preappraised evidence, critical appraisal of evidence, expert opinions, peer review, timeliness and updating, conflict of interest, and commercial support. Interrater agreement showed substantial agreement between 2 users for scoring with the 3-point ordinal scale (τ=.621, P<.01) and scoring with the 7-point Likert scale (τ=.677, P<.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The CAPOCI tool may support validation teams in the assessment of trustworthiness of POC resources. It may also provide guidance for producers of POC resources.

Tools to Assess the Trustworthiness of Evidence-Based Point-of-Care Information for Health Care Professionals: Systematic Review

Background

User-friendly information at the point of care should be well structured, rapidly accessible, and comprehensive. Also, this information should be trustworthy, as it will be used by health care practitioners to practice evidence-based medicine. Therefore, a standard, validated tool to evaluate the trustworthiness of such point-of-care information resources is needed.

Objective

This systematic review sought to search for tools to assess the trustworthiness of point-of-care resources and to describe and analyze the content of these tools.

Methods

A systematic search was performed on three sources: (1) we searched online for initiatives that worked off of the trustworthiness of medical information; (2) we searched Medline (PubMed) until June 2019 for relevant literature; and (3) we scanned reference lists and lists of citing papers via Web of Science for each retrieved paper. We included all studies, reports, websites, or methodologies that reported on tools that assessed the trustworthiness of medical information for professionals. From the selected studies, we extracted information on the general characteristics of the tools. As no standard, risk-of-bias assessment instruments are available for these types of studies, we described how each tool was developed, including any assessments on reliability and validity. We analyzed the criteria used in the different tools and divided them into five categories: (1) author-related information; (2) evidence-based methodology; (3) website quality; (4) website design and usability; and (5) website interactivity. The percentage of tools in compliance with these categories and the different criteria were calculated.

Results

Included in this review was a total of 17 tools, all published between 1997 and 2018. The tools were developed for different purposes, from a general quality assessment of medical information to very detailed analyses, all specifically for point-of-care resources. However, the development process of the tools was poorly described. Overall, seven tools had a scoring system implemented, two were assessed for reliability only, and two other tools were assessed for both validity and reliability. The content analysis showed that all the tools assessed criteria related to an evidence-based methodology: 82% of the tools assessed author-related information, 71% assessed criteria related to website quality, 71% assessed criteria related to website design and usability, and 47% of the tools assessed criteria related to website interactivity. There was significant variability in criteria used, as some were very detailed while others were more broadly defined.

Conclusions

The 17 included tools encompass a variety of items important for the assessment of the trustworthiness of point-of-care information. Overall, two tools were assessed for both reliability and validity, but they lacked some essential criteria for the assessment of the trustworthiness of medical information for use at the point-of-care. Currently, a standard, validated tool does not exist. The results of this review may contribute to the development of such an instrument, which may enhance the quality of point-of-care information in the long term.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42019122565; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=122565

Perspectives on the delegation of hygienic care in the context of home nursing: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

In light of current trends and healthcare evolutions, delegation of patient care from home nurses to health care assistants (HCAs) is increasingly important. Hygienic care is an essential component of nursing education and practice, yet it has rarely been the subject of scientific literature.

AIM

To understand the opinions and experiences of home nurses and policy makers with regard to the meaning of hygienic care and the delegation of these acts in the context of home nursing.

METHODS

A descriptive qualitative study (six focus groups with home nurses and two with policy makers from the Belgian home nursing sector). Content analysis of the data and the use of NVivo 11.0 software.

FINDINGS

Hygienic care is a cyclical care process of continuously investing in a trusting relationship with a patient, assessing their care needs and ability for self-care and taking action and evaluating care as situations change. All of this must be mutally agreed with the patient and should consider their environment and lifestyle. The decision to delegate hygienic care is based on patient assessments and the patient's specific care needs using nursing diagnoses and indicators. Finally, barriers and facilitating factors for both delegating and providing hygienic care were addressed.

CONCLUSION

Hygienic care is a crucial component of nursing care, that can be delegated to HCAs with the necessary supervision.

Home Nurses’ Opinions Toward e-Learning in Continuing Education

There is an increased focus on the introduction of e-learning in the continuing education of home nurses. The aim of this study was to explore the opinions of home nurses toward continuing education via e-learning. The majority of the participants (87.9%) were willing to be educated via e-learning. The five main criteria in the success of an e-learning module were the user friendliness (79.7%), a thorough explanation about the use of the platform (63.7%), a thorough development of the subject (34.7%), the possibility to exchange ideas with colleagues or teachers (30.9%), and the availability of online illustrations (30.8%). The home nurses are willing to be educated via e-learning, but they were not conclusive on their preference toward classical education or education via e-learning.