Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2020.08.008
DC FieldValue
dc.titleThe development and psychometric evaluation of the Clinicians' Attitudes towards Responding and Escalating care of Deteriorating patients scale
dc.contributor.authorChua, Wei Ling
dc.contributor.authorTee, Augustine
dc.contributor.authorHassan, Norasyikin Binte
dc.contributor.authorJones, Daryl
dc.contributor.authorTam, Wilson Wai San
dc.contributor.authorLiaw, Sok Ying
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-13T01:19:03Z
dc.date.available2022-10-13T01:19:03Z
dc.date.issued2021-07-01
dc.identifier.citationChua, Wei Ling, Tee, Augustine, Hassan, Norasyikin Binte, Jones, Daryl, Tam, Wilson Wai San, Liaw, Sok Ying (2021-07-01). The development and psychometric evaluation of the Clinicians' Attitudes towards Responding and Escalating care of Deteriorating patients scale. Australian Critical Care 34 (4) : 340-349. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2020.08.008
dc.identifier.issn1036-7314
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/232921
dc.description.abstractBackground: Validated measures of ward nurses' safety cultures in relation to escalations of care in deteriorating patients are lacking. Objectives: This study aimed to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Clinicians' Attitudes towards Responding and Escalating care of Deteriorating patients (CARED) scale for use among ward nurses. Methods: The study was conducted in two phases: scale development and psychometric evaluation. The scale items were developed based on a systematic literature review, informant interviews, and expert reviews (n = 15). The reliability and validity of the scale were examined by administering the scale to 617 registered nurses with retest evaluations (n = 60). The factor structure of the CARED scale was examined in a split-half analysis with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The internal consistency, test–retest reliability, convergent validity, and known-group validity of the scale were also analysed. Results: A high overall content validity index of 0.95 was obtained from the validations of 15 international experts from seven countries. A three-factor solution was identified from the final 22 items: ‘beliefs about rapid response system’, ‘fears about escalating care’, and ‘perceived confidence in responding to deteriorating patients’. The internal consistency reliability of the scale was supported with a good Cronbach's alpha value of 0.86 and a Spearman-Brown split-half coefficient of 0.87. An excellent test–retest reliability was demonstrated, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.92. The convergent validity of the scale was supported with an existing validated scale. The CARED scale also demonstrated abilities to discriminate differences among the sample characteristics. Conclusions: The final 22-item CARED scale was tested to be a reliable and valid scale in the Singaporean setting. The scale may be used in other settings to review hospitals' rapid response systems and to identify strategies to support ward nurses in the process of escalating care in deteriorating ward patients. © 2020 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd
dc.publisherElsevier Ireland Ltd
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.sourceScopus OA2021
dc.subjectClinical deterioration
dc.subjectEscalation of care
dc.subjectMedical emergency team
dc.subjectNurse
dc.subjectPatient safety
dc.subjectRapid response system
dc.subjectScale development
dc.subjectWard patients
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentALICE LEE CENTRE FOR NURSING STUDIES
dc.description.doi10.1016/j.aucc.2020.08.008
dc.description.sourcetitleAustralian Critical Care
dc.description.volume34
dc.description.issue4
dc.description.page340-349
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_1016_j_aucc_2020_08_008.pdf579.75 kBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons