Articles: checklist.
-
Valid and reliable instruments are needed to measure communication interaction behaviors between nurses and mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients who are without oral speech. ⋯ Preliminary results suggest that the revised CIBI has good face validity and shows good interrater reliability for many of the behaviors, but further refinement is needed. The use of dual raters with adjudication of discrepancies is the recommended method of administration for the revised CIBI.
-
Plast. Reconstr. Surg. · Jan 2014
Multicenter Study Clinical TrialMeasuring outcomes that matter to face-lift patients: development and validation of FACE-Q appearance appraisal scales and adverse effects checklist for the lower face and neck.
The FACE-Q is a new patient-reported outcome instrument to evaluate a range of outcomes for patients undergoing any type of facial cosmetic operation, minimally invasive cosmetic procedure, or facial injectable. This article describes the development and validation of FACE-Q scales relevant to face-lift patients. ⋯ The five FACE-Q appearance appraisal scales were found to be clinically meaningful, reliable, valid, and responsive to clinical change. These findings were supported by Rasch measurement theory analysis (e.g., overall chi-square values of p ≥ 0.18; Person Separation Index ≥ 0.88). Responsiveness analyses showed that patient scores for facial appearance improved significantly after treatment (p < 0.001); changes in scores were associated with moderate effect sizes (range effect size, 0.40 to 0.79; range standardized response mean, 0.37 to 0.69). Traditional psychometric statistics provided further support (e.g., Cronbach's alpha values ≥ 0.94) CONCLUSIONS:: The FACE-Q appearance appraisal scales are scientifically sound and clinically meaningful and can be used with the adverse effects checklist to measure patient-reported outcomes following a face lift.
-
Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. ⋯ While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
-
Endoscopic endonasal surgery relies heavily on specialized operative instrumentation and optimization of endocrinological and other critical adjunctive intraoperative factors. Several studies and worldwide initiatives have previously established that intraoperative and perioperative surgical checklists can minimize the incidence of and prevent adverse events. ⋯ Although no major errors were detected, near misses pertaining primarily to missing components of surgical equipment or instruments were identified in 9 cases (36%). The considerations in the checklist provided in this article can serve as a basic template for further customization by centers performing endoscopic endonasal surgery, where their application may reduce the incidence of adverse or preventable errors associated with surgical treatment of sellar and skull base lesions.
-
Checklists have been used to improve quality in many industries, including healthcare. The use of checklists, however, has not been extensively evaluated in clinical ethics consultation. This article seeks to fill this gap by exploring the efficacy of using a checklist in ethics consultation, as tested by an empirical investigation of the use of the checklist at a large academic medical system (Cleveland Clinic). ⋯ Despite these limitations, to the authors' knowledge this is the first investigation of the use of a checklist systematically to improve quality in ethics consultation. Importantly, our findings shed light on ways this checklist can be used to improve ethics consultation, including its use as an educational tool. The authors hope to test the checklist with consultants in other healthcare systems to explore its usefulness in different healthcare environments.