Adapting the Client Priority Rating Scale to better fit the sexual health counselling setting: a quality improvement study.

Background: When demand for counselling in community-based clinics exceeds capacity, waiting lists are typically formed. Determining allocation priority solely on wait time can overlook client risk factors that can elevate priority. We undertook to rigorously adapt the only existing validated counselling triage tool, to better fit the sexual health setting. Methods: Sexual health counsellors were surveyed about aspects of client presentations that flagged increased priority. The revised Client Priority Rating Scale (CPRS-R) was created through systematic analysis and decision making, informed by survey results and literature review. Four expert sexual health counsellors independently rated the priority of 14 hypothetical clinical vignettes using the CPRS and CPRS-R. Results: Criterion (concurrent), content and face validity are evidenced in the revised scale. Average interrater agreement was higher on the CPRS-R (28%) than the CPRS (11%); however, this difference was marginal (P = 0.06). According to Gwet's Agreement Coefficient (AC) and Krippendorff's Alpha, both the CPRS and the CPRS-R demonstrate comparable interrater reliability, substantial and moderate, respectively. Kendall's W indicates the CPRS yielded higher reliability. However, the difference is not substantial. Conclusions: The CPRS-R is a triage tool designed for the sexual health counselling setting. This tool has demonstrated criterion, content and face validity, as well as moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability. It can be used in sexual health settings to inform assessments about client priority, along with clinical judgement and peer consultation. Effective client triage is essential when demand for counselling exceeds capacity. We adapted an existing counselling triage tool to better fit the sexual health setting. Psychometric scales are useful tools in patient assessment and care, however, are best applied in combination with clinical judgement and peer consultation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]