-
Something wrong with this record ?
Creation and validation of Q-DIO, an instrument for rating the quality of nursing documentation – literature review
Dagmar Šerková, Jana Marečková
Language English Country Czech Republic
NLK
Directory of Open Access Journals
from 2014
Free Medical Journals
from 2010
ProQuest Central
from 2018-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2014-01-01
CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost)
from 2014-01-01
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest)
from 2018-01-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
from 2014
- Keywords
- Q-DIO, relevance,
- MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Nursing Assessment * methods statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Surveys and Questionnaires MeSH
- Reproducibility of Results MeSH
- Information Storage and Retrieval methods statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
Aim:To summarize relevant information on the creation and validation of the Quality of Nursing Diagnoses, Interventions and Outcomes (Q-DIO) assessment instrument. Design:A literature review. Methods: To search for studies, the first two steps ofastandard evidence-based healthcare approach were used: 1) formulation of a search question and 2) structured documented search including assessment of the relevance of abstractsand full text of studies to the search question and inclusion criteria. Inrelevant studies, the level of evidence was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute categories. Results: Out of 212results of two-step search in scholarly databases and grey literature sources, only three literature resources were relevant. The newly developed Q-DIO instrument was assessed by its authors using content and face validation (100% consensus of experts and 88.25% agreement), intrarater (r = 0.98; p <0.0001;κ=0.95;p< 0.0001) and interrater reliability (r=0.99; p< 0.0001, κ=0.95;p< 0.0001) and internal consistency of the concepts of the instrument (Cα = 0.83; Cα = 0.98; Cα = 0.90;Cα=0.99). Item analysis was carried out to determine both difficulty and discriminative validity of the items. Conclusion: Q-DIO was by the authors marked as valid assessment instrument by its authors. However, since the assessed instrument items are formulatedwithout identifying currently valid NNN nomenclature terminology, they should be specified prior to a particular assessment ofthe quality of nursing documentation.
References provided by Crossref.org
Literatura
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc18023140
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20200415000421.0
- 007
- cr|cn|
- 008
- 180627s2018 xr d fs 000 0|eng||
- 009
- eAR
- 024 0_
- $a 10.15452/CEJNM.2018.09.0007 $2 doi
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2 $b cze
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xr
- 100 1_
- $a Šerková, Dagmar $7 xx0238623 $u Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava,Czech Republic
- 245 10
- $a Creation and validation of Q-DIO, an instrument for rating the quality of nursing documentation – literature review / $c Dagmar Šerková, Jana Marečková
- 504 __
- $a Literatura
- 520 9_
- $a Aim:To summarize relevant information on the creation and validation of the Quality of Nursing Diagnoses, Interventions and Outcomes (Q-DIO) assessment instrument. Design:A literature review. Methods: To search for studies, the first two steps ofastandard evidence-based healthcare approach were used: 1) formulation of a search question and 2) structured documented search including assessment of the relevance of abstractsand full text of studies to the search question and inclusion criteria. Inrelevant studies, the level of evidence was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute categories. Results: Out of 212results of two-step search in scholarly databases and grey literature sources, only three literature resources were relevant. The newly developed Q-DIO instrument was assessed by its authors using content and face validation (100% consensus of experts and 88.25% agreement), intrarater (r = 0.98; p <0.0001;κ=0.95;p< 0.0001) and interrater reliability (r=0.99; p< 0.0001, κ=0.95;p< 0.0001) and internal consistency of the concepts of the instrument (Cα = 0.83; Cα = 0.98; Cα = 0.90;Cα=0.99). Item analysis was carried out to determine both difficulty and discriminative validity of the items. Conclusion: Q-DIO was by the authors marked as valid assessment instrument by its authors. However, since the assessed instrument items are formulatedwithout identifying currently valid NNN nomenclature terminology, they should be specified prior to a particular assessment ofthe quality of nursing documentation.
- 650 12
- $a ošetřovatelské zhodnocení $x metody $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D009730
- 650 _2
- $a ukládání a vyhledávání informací $x metody $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D016247
- 650 _2
- $a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
- 650 _2
- $a průzkumy a dotazníky $7 D011795
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 653 00
- $a Q-DIO
- 653 00
- $a relevance
- 700 1_
- $a Marečková, Jana, $d 1961- $7 jn20010309150 $u Department of Anthropology and Health Education, Faculty of Education, Palacký University Olomouc, Czech Republic; The Czech Republic (Middle European) Centre for Evidence-Based Healthcare: A Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Czech Republic
- 773 0_
- $t Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery $x 2336-3517 $g Roč. 9, č. 1 (2018), s. 799-810 $w MED00183333
- 856 41
- $u https://periodika.osu.cz/ojs/index.php/cejnm/issue/archive $y domovská stránka časopisu
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b online $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20180626062836 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20200415000413 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1313336 $s 1020050
- BAS __
- $a 3 $a 4
- BMC __
- $a 2018 $b 9 $c 1 $d 799-810 $i 2336-3517 $m Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery $x MED00183333
- LZP __
- $c NLK189 $d 20200415 $a NLK 2018-14/vt
