Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28857791›Full record

ArticleAcademic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges2018

The High-Value Care Rounding Tool: Development and Validity Evidence.

Corrie E McDaniel, Andrew A White, Miranda C Bradford, Carolyn D Sy, Tiffany Chen, Doug Brock, Jeffrey Foti, Jimmy B Beck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Teaching High-Value Care: Case Vignettes for Pediatric Practice.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2018
    Article
  6. Observational
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

8 authors.

Corrie E McDanielC.E. McDaniel is clinical assistant professor, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. A.A. White is associate professor, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. M.C. Bradford is a biostatistician, Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. C.D. Sy is clinical instructor, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. T. Chen is clinical instructor, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. D. Brock is associate professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. J. Foti is clinical associate professor, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. J.B. Beck is assistant professor, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Andrew A White
Miranda C Bradford
Carolyn D Sy
Tiffany Chen
Doug Brock
Jeffrey Foti
Jimmy B Beck

Funding

Institute of Translational Health SciencesUL1TR000423 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DISIS, MARY L. · 2012 to 2016
$49.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000423
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineHealth Care CostsPatient Outcome AssessmentQuality of Health CareClinical CompetenceHumansReproducibility of ResultsTeaching Rounds

Identifiers

PMID28857791
PMCPMC6737943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.