ArticleBMC health services research2013
The Care Process Self-Evaluation Tool: a valid and reliable instrument for measuring care process organization of health care teams.
Article in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Arts-Based Interventions for Professionals in Caring Roles During and After Crisis: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Pooled it
- Measurement tools and outcome measures used in transitional patient safety; a systematic review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Patient and Family-Centered Care to Promote Inpatient Safety: An Exploration of Nursing Care and Management Processes.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Article
- Patient and Health Care Professional Perspectives: A Case Study of the Lung Cancer Integrated Care Pathway.International journal of integrated care · 2018Article
- Article
- Remediation Methods for Milestones Related to Interpersonal and Communication Skills and Professionalism.Journal of graduate medical education · 2016Article
- Main barriers to effective implementation of stroke care pathways in France: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2014Article
- Integrated Maternal Care Strategies in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.International journal of integrated careArticle
- How do neurologists perceive the organization and functioning of multiple sclerosis care units?Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient safety can be increased by improving the organization of care. A tool that evaluates the actual organization of care, as perceived by multidisciplinary teams, is the Care Process Self-Evaluation Tool (CPSET). CPSET was developed in 2007 and includes 29 items in five subscales: (a) patient-focused organization, (b) coordination of the care process, (c) collaboration with primary care, (d) communication with patients and family, and (e) follow-up of the care process. The goal of the present study was to further evaluate the psychometric properties of the CPSET at the team and hospital levels and to compile a cutoff score table.
methodsThe psychometric properties of the CPSET were assessed in a multicenter study in Belgium and the Netherlands. In total, 3139 team members from 114 hospitals participated. Psychometric properties were evaluated by using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Cronbach's alpha, interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Kruskall-Wallis test, and Mann-Whitney test. For the cutoff score table, percentiles were used. Demographic variables were also evaluated.
resultsCFA showed a good model fit: a normed fit index of 0.93, a comparative fit index of 0.94, an adjusted goodness-of-fit index of 0.87, and a root mean square error of approximation of 0.06. Cronbach's alpha values were between 0.869 and 0.950. The team-level ICCs varied between 0.127 and 0.232 and were higher than those at the hospital level (0.071-0.151). Male team members scored significantly higher than females on 2 of the 5 subscales and on the overall CPSET. There were also significant differences among age groups. Medical doctors scored significantly higher on 4 of the 5 subscales and on the overall CPSET. Coordinators of care processes scored significantly lower on 2 of the 5 subscales and on the overall CPSET. Cutoff scores for all subscales and the overall CPSET were calculated.
conclusionsThe CPSET is a valid and reliable instrument for health care teams to measure the extent care processes are organized. The cutoff table permits teams to compare how they perceive the organization of their care process relative to other teams.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.