201. The High-Value Care Rounding Tool: Development and Validity Evidence
- Author
-
Jimmy Beck, Doug Brock, Andrew A. White, Carolyn D. Sy, Tiffany Chen, Miranda C. Bradford, Jeffrey Foti, and Corrie E. McDaniel
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Computer science ,media_common.quotation_subject ,Psychological intervention ,Delphi method ,Modified delphi ,01 natural sciences ,Article ,Education ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Content validity ,medicine ,Humans ,Quality (business) ,Medical physics ,030212 general & internal medicine ,0101 mathematics ,media_common ,Quality of Health Care ,Evidence-Based Medicine ,Rounding ,010102 general mathematics ,Reproducibility of Results ,General Medicine ,Health Care Costs ,Patient Outcome Assessment ,Teaching Rounds ,Clinical Competence ,Construct (philosophy) ,Value (mathematics) - Abstract
Little is known about current practices in high-value care (HVC) bedside teaching. A lack of instruments for measuring bedside HVC behaviors confounds efforts to assess the impact of curricular interventions. The authors aimed to define observable HVC concepts by developing an instrument to measure the content and frequency of HVC discussions. The authors developed the HVC Rounding Tool in four iterative phases, using Messick’s validity framework. Phases 1 and 2 were designed to collect evidence of content validity, Phases 3 and 4 to collect evidence of response process and internal structure. Phase 1 identified HVC topics within the literature. Phase 2 used a modified Delphi approach for construct definition and tool development. Through two rounds, the Delphi panel narrowed 16 HVC topics to 11 observable items, categorized into three domains (quality, cost, and patient values). Phase 3 involved rater training and creation of a codebook. Phase 4 involved three iterations of instrument piloting. Six trained raters, in pairs, observed bedside rounds during 148 patient encounters in 2016. Weighted kappas for each domain demonstrated improvement from the first to third iteration: Quality increased from 0.65 (95% CI 0.55–0.79) to 1.00, cost from 0.58 (95% CI 0.4–0.75) to 0.96 (95% CI 0.80–1.00), and patient values from 0.41 (95% CI 0.19–0.68) to 1.00. Percent positive agreement for all domains improved from 65.3% to 98.1%. This tool, the first with established validity evidence, addresses an important educational gap for measuring the translation of HVC from theoretical knowledge to bedside practice.
- Published
- 2018