Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28569151›Full record

Observational studyBMC health services research2017

Reliability, feasibility, and validity of the quality of interactions schedule (QuIS) in acute hospital care: an observational study.

Christopher McLean, Peter Griffiths, Ines Mesa-Eguiagaray, Ruth M Pickering, Jackie Bridges

Abstract readValidation StudyObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Christopher McLeanFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. cdm@soton.ac.uk.
Peter GriffithsFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Ines Mesa-EguiagarayFaculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Ruth M PickeringFaculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Jackie BridgesFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/13/07/48
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch into relational care in hospitals will be facilitated by a focus on staff-patient interactions. The Quality of Interactions Schedule (QuIS) uses independent observers to measure the number of staff-patient interactions within a healthcare context, and to rate these interactions as 'positive social'; 'positive care'; 'neutral'; 'negative protective'; or 'negative restrictive'. QuIS was developed as a research instrument in long term care settings and has since been used for quality improvement in acute care. Prior to this study, its use had not been standardised, and reliability and validity in acute care had not been established.

methodsIn 2014 and 2015 a three - phase study was undertaken to develop and test protocols for the use of QuIS across three acute wards within one NHS trust in England. The phases were: (1) A pilot of 16 h observation which developed implementation strategies for QuIS in this context; (2) training two observers and undertaking 16 h of paired observation to inform the development of training protocols; (3) training four nurses and two lay volunteers according to a finalised protocol followed by 36 h of paired observations to test inter-rater agreement. Additionally, patients were asked to rate interactions and to complete a shortened version of the Patient Evaluation of Emotional Care during Hospitalisation (PEECH) questionnaire.

resultsProtocols were developed for the use of QuIS in acute care. Patients experienced an average of 6.7 interactions/patient/h (n = 447 interactions). There was close agreement between observers in relation to the number of interactions observed (Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.97) and moderate to substantial agreement on the quality of interactions (absolute agreement 73%, kappa 0.53 to 0.62 depending on weighting scheme). There was 79% agreement (weighted kappa 0.40: P < 0.001; indicating fair agreement) between patients and observers over whether interactions were positive, negative or neutral.

conclusionsObservers using clear QuIS protocols can achieve levels of agreement that are acceptable for the use of QuIS as a research instrument. There is fair agreement between observers and patients' rating of interactions. Further research is needed to explore the relationship between QuIS measures and reported patient experience.

Indexed as

Professional-Patient RelationsQuality ImprovementEmergency Service, HospitalEnglandFeasibility StudiesHealth Care SurveysHumansLong-Term CareObservationReproducibility of ResultsStaff DevelopmentSurveys and QuestionnairesAcute careCommunicationInterpersonal relationsOutcome measuresQuality of interactions scheduleQuISValidation studies

Identifiers

PMID28569151
PMCPMC5452351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.