สล็อตออนไลน์888
Dieticians of Canada
Login     Register      Mobile      Cart

Evaluation of a Patient Experience Tool in Dietetic Practice: Validation and Clinical Usage of the Assessment of Registered Dietitian Care Survey (ARCS)

Allison Fielding BSc, RD, Lorian M. Taylor PhD, RD, Stephanie Moriartey PhD, RD, Janet Stadynk BSc, RD

aNutrition Services, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, AB

Published on the web 15 November 2018.


Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research, https://doi.org/10.3148/cjdpr-2018-036

Abstract

Purpose: The study aim was to evaluate a patient experience survey, the Assessment of Registered Dietitian Care Survey (ARCS), that is aligned with a nutrition counselling approach (NCA) and evidence-based chronic disease care for use in outpatient registered dietitian (RD) practice.

Methods: Criterion and construct validity were examined using Pearson correlation coefficients and principal components analyses, respectively. Reliability was examined using Pearson correlations and Cronbach’s α. Acceptability was evaluated by survey response rate and readability. Kruskall–Wallis test was used to detect differences between RD scores.

Results: A total of 479 survey packages were returned (46% response rate). Criterion validity indices were high (r?=?0.91 and 0.94, P?<?0.001) between Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and NCA subscales, respectively, and lower with overall patient satisfaction (r?=?0.63–0.65, P?<?0.001). Construct validity revealed 2 factors for PACIC and NCA subscales. There was high internal reliability for the PACIC, 5As, and NCA (Cronbach’s α?>?0.7) and test–retest reliability showed an adequate consistency over time (r?=?0.70, P?<?0.05). The tool was able to detect differences in scores between RDs (P?<?0.05).

Conclusions: More research is warranted to explore ceiling effects and sensitivity to intervention in similar practice settings. The NCA subscale has acceptable reliability and validity to measure patient experience of RD care.

Financial support: All funding was from Alberta Health Services; no external sources of funding were received.

Conflict of interest: All authors declare no conflict of interest.


References

  • 1.
    Desroches S, Lapointe A, Ratte S, Gravel K, Legare F, Turcotte S. 2013. Interventions to enhance adherence to dietary advice for preventing and managing chronic diseases in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2: CD008722 Google Scholar.
  • 2.
    Hammond MI, Myers EF, Trostler N. 2014. Nutrition care process and model: an academic and practice odyssey. J Acad Nutr Diet. 114(12): 1879-94 Crossref, Medline,?Google Scholar.
  • 3.
    American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Nutrition terminology reference manual (eNCPT): dietetics language for nutrition care. Chicago, IL: Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics; 2015. Google Scholar
  • 4.
    Wagner E, Austin B, Davis C, Hindmarsh M, Schaefer J, Bonomi A. 2001. Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action. Health Aff (Millwood). 20(6): 64-78 Crossref, Medline,?Google Scholar.
  • 5.
    Glasgow RE, Whitesides H, Nelson CC, King DK. 2005. Use of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) with diabetic patients: relationship to patient characteristics, receipt of care, and self-management. Diab Care. 28(11): 2655-61 Crossref, Medline,?Google Scholar.
  • 6.
    Coleman K, Austin BT, Brach C, Wagner EH. 2009. Evidence on the chronic care model in the new millennium. Health Aff (Millwood). 28(1): 75-85 Crossref, Medline,?Google Scholar.
  • 7.
    Fiore MC, Jaén CR, Baker TB. Tobacco use and guidance panel. Treating tobacco use and dependance: 2008 Update. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2008. Report No.: NBK63952. Google Scholar
  • 8.
    Iglesias K, Burnand B, Peytremann-Bridevaux I. 2014. PACIC instrument: disentangling dimensions using published validation models. Int J Qual Health Care. 26(3): 250-60 Crossref, Medline,?Google Scholar.
  • 9.
    Hung YC, Bauer J, Isenring E. 2013. Patient satisfaction with nutrition services amongst cancer patients treated with autologous stem cell transplantation: a comparison of usual and extended care. J Hum Nutr Diet. 27(Suppl 2): 333-38 Medline,?Google Scholar.
  • 10.
    Moret L, Nguyen JM, Pillet N, Falissard B, Lombrail P, Gasquet I. 2007. Improvement of psychometric properties of a scale measuring inpatient satisfaction with care: a better response rate and a reduction of the ceiling effect. BMC Health Serv Res. 7: 197 Crossref, Medline,?Google Scholar.
  • 11.
    Vivanti A, Ash S, Hulcombe J. 2007. Validation of a satisfaction survey for rural and urban outpatient dietetic services. J Hum Nutr Diet. 20: 41-49 Crossref, Medline,?Google Scholar.
  • 12.
    Glasgow RE, Wagner EH, Schaefer J, Mahoney LD, Reid RJ, Greene SM. 2005. Development and validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). Med Care. 43(5): 436-44 Crossref, Medline,?Google Scholar.
  • 13.
    Vrijhoef HJ, Berbee R, Wagner EH, Steuten LM. 2009. Quality of integrated chronic care measured by patient survey: identification, selection and application of most appropriate instruments. Health Expect. 12(4): 417-29 Crossref, Medline,?Google Scholar.
  • 14.
    Health Quality Council of Alberta. Satisfaction and experience with healthcare services: a survey of Albertans 2012. Calgary, AB: Health Quality Council of Alberta; 2012. Google Scholar
  • 15.
    Kaiser HF. 1970. A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika. 35(4): 401-15 Crossref,?Google Scholar.
  • 16.
    Kaiser HF. 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 39(1): 31-36 Crossref,?Google Scholar.
  • 17.
    Bartlett MS. 1954. A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. J. Royal Stat Soc. 16(Series B): 296-98 Google Scholar.
  • 18.
    Pallant, J. SPSS survival manual. 5th ed. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: Open University Press; 2013. Google Scholar
  • 19.
    Hollander, M, Wolfe, D. Nonparametric statistical methods. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1999. Google Scholar
  • 20.
    Cohen J. 1992. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 112(1): 155-59 Crossref, Medline,?Google Scholar.
  • 21.
    Streiner, D, Norman, G. Health measurement scales. 3rd ed. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003. Google Scholar
  • 22.
    Nunnally, JO. Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1978. Google Scholar
  • 23.
    McLaughlin GH. 1969. SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Read. 12(8): 639-46 Google Scholar.
  • 24.
    Cramm JM, Nieboer AP. 2012. Factorial validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and PACIC short version (PACIC-S) among cardiovascular disease patients in the Netherlands. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 10: 104 Crossref, Medline,?Google Scholar.
  • 25.
    Fan J, McCoy RG, Ziegenfuss JY, Smith SA, Borah BJ, Deming JR, et al. 2015. Evaluating the structure of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) survey from the patient’s perspective. Ann Behav Med. 49(1): 104-11 Crossref, Medline,?Google Scholar.
  • 26.
    Szecsenyi J, Rosemann T, Joos S, Peters-Klimm F, Miksch A. 2008. German diabetes disease management programs are appropriate for restructuring care according to the chronic care model: an evaluation with the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument. Diab Care. 31(6): 1150-54 Crossref, Medline,?Google Scholar.
  • 27.
    Taylor LM, Moriartey S, Stadnyk J, Basualdo-Hammond C. 2016. Assessment of registered dietitians beliefs and practices for a nutrition counselling approach. Can J Diet Pract Res. 77(3): 140-47 Link,?Google Scholar. Abstract
  • 28.
    McIntosh C. Examining the factorial validity of selected modules from the Canadian survey of experiences with primary health care. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada; 2008 [cited 2018 Jul 1] Available from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-622-x/82-622-x2008001-eng.htm. Google Scholar
  • 29.
    Doak C, Doak L. Teaching patients with low literacy skills. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott Company; 1996. สล็อตออนไลน์888Google Scholar