Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39972550›Full record

ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025

Development of an Audit Tool to Evaluate End of Life Care in the Emergency Department: A Face and Content Validity Study.

Melissa Heufel, Sarah Kourouche, Rebecca Mitchell, Magnolia Cardona, Benjamin Thomas, Wing-Shan Angela Lo, Marghie Murgo, Debbie Vergan, Kate Curtis

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

Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Melissa HeufelSusan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5597-6156
Sarah KouroucheSusan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6210-6191
Rebecca MitchellAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Magnolia CardonaSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Benjamin ThomasPalliative Care Service, Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District, Warrawong, New South Wales, Australia.
Wing-Shan Angela LoPalliative Care Service, Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District, Warrawong, New South Wales, Australia.
Marghie MurgoSusan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Debbie VerganEmergency Department, Wollongong Hospital, Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Kate CurtisSusan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

This study was funded by a clinician researcher grant from the Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesEmergency Departments (ED) are increasingly caring for patients with acute, chronic and terminal conditions requiring End of Life Care (EOLC). There is no published and validated tool available to evaluate EOLC delivery of patients dying in the ED. This study describes the face and content validity testing process to develop, refine and test a new and unique audit tool to evaluate EOLC in the ED.

methodsThe face and content validation process used a three-round modified-Delphi technique. We consulted 11 experts to assess the proposed 89 items. Face validity explored the overall question of appropriateness and relevance; and content validity examined relevance ratings using the Content Validity Index (CVI) 4-point Likert scale in two rounds. Iterative assessment of ratings led to inclusion (CVI > 0.78), revision (CVI 0.65 to < 0.78) or exclusion (CVI < 0.65) of items from the tool.

resultsOf the initial 89 items, 66 were included (CVI > 0.78), 16 items revised (scores 0.65 to < 0.78), seven were removed (scores < 0.65) and two new items suggested. Items covered the constructs patient characteristics, circumstances of death, ED performance, communication and care planning, recognition of dying, care delivery, and needs of families and carers. Scale CVI achieved 0.90. The consolidated list of 81 items achieved acceptable face validity and excellent content validity.

conclusionFace and content validity of the ED EOLC audit tool achieved acceptable item-CVI scores and an excellent scale-CVI score. We recommend external validation of its components in real-life settings to monitor and set locally relevant clinical practice benchmarks.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalMedical AuditTerminal CareDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of Resultsclinical assessmentclinical decisionscommunicationpalliative careservice evaluationsymptoms and symptom managementterminal care

Identifiers

PMID39972550
PMCPMC11839938

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.