目的:小纤维神经病(SFN)是一种周围神经病变,导致神经性疼痛和自主神经功能障碍。荷兰已实施了基于证据的标准化患者诊断SFN服务,以改善以患者为中心的SFN护理。然而,这种诊断性SFN服务的护理质量从未从患者角度进行过评估.这项研究的目的是开发和验证SFN患者满意度问卷(SFN-PSQ),以衡量标准化诊断SFN服务的质量表现。
方法:使用(COREQ(报告定性研究的综合标准)清单进行描述性定性研究以创建SFN-PSQ。对于项目生成和内容开发,选择了来自经过验证的PSQs的域和/或项目。内容开发和内容有效性是使用Delphi方法与具有不同背景的SFN专家护理人员进行的。通过在个体认知访谈中使用三步测试法,患者的内容有效性最终确定.
结果:在一个在线Delphi面板中,对SFN-PSQ的第一个概念的内容进行了验证,这导致了SFN-PSQ的第二个概念。从2019年7月到2020年3月,9名患者同意参加个人认知访谈。新问卷最重要的变化是增加了与等待名单有关的领域和项目,医院精神科医生的诊断服务和咨询。此外,对住院和门诊诊断SFN服务进行了区分.此外,域/项目的清晰度和可理解性得到了提高,导致对SFN-PSQ的理解增加。最终,新开发的SFN-PSQ由10个域名和51个项目组成,适用于测量患者对SFN神经学分析的满意度。
结论:通过项目生成,专家意见和对患者的访谈,开发并验证了SFN-PSQ,并证实了可行性。问卷的结构,基于逻辑和诊断SFN途径,可以作为其他医院提高质量的典范,考虑到潜在的跨文化差异,SFN护理和其他慢性疾病的连续性和可获得性。
■护理人员参与了问卷的项目生成和内容开发。患者直接参与了SFN-PSQ的内容有效性和可行性测试。
背景:不适用。
OBJECTIVE: Small fibre neuropathy (SFN) is a peripheral neuropathy, leading to neuropathic pain and autonomic dysfunction. An evidence-based standardized patient diagnostic SFN service has been implemented in the Netherlands for improving patient-centred SFN care. However, the quality of care of this diagnostic SFN service has never been assessed from a patient perspective. The aim of this
study was to develop and validate an SFN-Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (SFN-PSQ) to measure the quality performance of a standardized diagnostic SFN service.
METHODS: A descriptive qualitative
study to create the SFN-PSQ was performed using the (COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist. For item generation and content development, domains and/or items from validated PSQs were selected. The content development and content validity were performed using a Delphi method with SFN expert caregivers with different backgrounds. By using the three-step-test method in individual cognitive interviews, the content validity by patients was finalized.
RESULTS: In one online Delphi panel round, the content of the first concept of the SFN-PSQ was validated, which resulted in the second concept of the SFN-PSQ. From July 2019 till March 2020, nine patients consented to participate in the individual cognitive interviews. The most significant changes of the new questionnaire were adding domains and items concerning the waiting list, the diagnostic services and consultation by the hospital psychiatrist. Also, a differentiation was made for both an inpatient and outpatient diagnostic SFN service. Furthermore, the clarity and intelligibility of the domains/items were improved, resulting in an increased comprehension of the SFN-PSQ. Ultimately, the new developed SFN-PSQ consisted of 10 domains and 51 items, suitable for measuring patient satisfaction of the neurological analysis in patients with SFN.
CONCLUSIONS: Through item generation, expert opinions and interviews with patients, the SFN-PSQ was developed and validated, and feasibility was confirmed. The structure of the questionnaire, based on the logistic and diagnostic SFN pathway, could be used as a model in other hospitals to improve the quality, continuity and access of SFN care and other chronic diseases taking into account potential cross-cultural differences.
UNASSIGNED: Caregivers were involved in the item generation and content development of the questionnaire. Patients were directly involved in testing the content validity and feasibility of the SFN-PSQ.
BACKGROUND: Not applicable.