Search

Communication quality in the hospital impacts outcomes like satisfaction, depression, and anxiety for families, and assessment tools must be efficient and reliable. We developed the Quick FICS-5 and -10, shorter versions of the 30-item Family Inpatient Communication Survey (FICS). The Quick FICS were developed from the original FICS study of hospitalized patients 65+ and their surrogates. The development sample came from the original FICS-30 scale. The validation sample came from a randomized controlled trial of surrogates for adult ICU patients. Participants were family members of patients on medical ICU or inpatient medicine services at three hospitals in a Midwest metropolitan area. We evaluated validity and reliability using factor analysis, internal consistency, and associations with surrogate psychological and decision-making outcomes. In the development sample of 364 patient/surrogate dyads, most surrogates were adult children (66.8%), female (70.9%), and white (68.9%). We identified 5-item and 10-item surveys. Exploratory factor analysis supported an overall communication score for the FICS-5 and FICS-10, as well as information and emotional support subscales for the FICS-10. There was high internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha was 0.83 for the FICS-5 and 0.90 for the FICS-10; information and emotional support subscales were 0.89 and 0.75 respectively). There was good predictive validity when comparing FICS scores to outcomes six to eight weeks after discharge, including anxiety (P = -0.13; P = 0.0234), and satisfaction with the hospital stay (P = 0.48; P < 0.0001). Similarly, the validation sample (n = 188) revealed Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.81 to 0.93 and significant correlations (P < 0.05) with concurrent distress, anxiety, depression, and decision regret. The Quick FICS offers efficient, valid, and reliable evaluation of communication quality in the hospital that can be useful for research and quality improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about the consistency of initial NIHSS scores between neurologists and RNs in clinical practice. Methods: A cohort study of patients with a code stroke was conducted at an urban academic Primary Stroke Center in the Midwest between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019 to determine consistency in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale Scores (NIHSS) between neurologists and registered nurses (RNs). Results: Among the 438 patients included in this study 65.3% (n = 286) of neurologist-RN NIHSS scoring pairs had congruent scores. One-in-three, (34.7%, n = 152) of neurologist-RN NIHSS scoring pairs had a clinically meaningful scoring difference of two points or greater. Higher NIHSS (p ≤ 0.01) and aphasia (p ≤ 0.01) were each associated with incongruent scoring between neurologist and emergency room RN pairs. Conclusions: One-in-three initial NIHSS assessed by both a neurologist and RN had a clinically meaningful score difference between providers. More severe stroke, as indicated by a higher NIHSS was associated with scoring inconsistency between neurologist-RN pairs. Subjective scoring measures, especially those involving a patient having aphasia, was associated with greater score incongruency. Score differences may be attributed to differences in NIHSS training requirements between neurologists and RNs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]