PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-5 (5)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  "It's hard to tell": The challenges of scoring patients on standardised outcome measures by multidisciplinary teams: a case study of neurorehabilitation 
Background
Interest is increasing in the application of standardised outcome measures in clinical practice. Measures designed for use in research may not be sufficiently precise to be used in monitoring individual patients. However, little is known about how clinicians and in particular, multidisciplinary teams, score patients using these measures. This paper explores the challenges faced by multidisciplinary teams in allocating scores on standardised outcome measures in clinical practice.
Methods
Qualitative case study of an inpatient neurorehabilitation team who routinely collected standardised outcome measures on their patients. Data were collected using non participant observation, fieldnotes and tape recordings of 16 multidisciplinary team meetings during which the measures were recited and scored. Eleven clinicians from a range of different professions were also interviewed. Data were analysed used grounded theory techniques.
Results
We identified a number of instances where scoring the patient was 'problematic'. In 'problematic' scoring, the scores were uncertain and subject to revision and adjustment. They sometimes required negotiation to agree on a shared understanding of concepts to be measured and the guidelines for scoring. Several factors gave rise to this problematic scoring. Team members' knowledge about patients' problems changed over time so that initial scores had to be revised or dismissed, creating an impression of deterioration when none had occurred. Patients had complex problems which could not easily be distinguished from each other and patients themselves varied in their ability to perform tasks over time and across different settings. Team members from different professions worked with patients in different ways and had different perspectives on patients' problems. This was particularly an issue in the scoring of concepts such as anxiety, depression, orientation, social integration and cognitive problems.
Conclusion
From a psychometric perspective these problems would raise questions about the validity, reliability and responsiveness of the scores. However, from a clinical perspective, such characteristics are an inherent part of clinical judgement and reasoning. It is important to highlight the challenges faced by multidisciplinary teams in scoring patients on standardised outcome measures but it would be unwarranted to conclude that such challenges imply that these measures should not be used in clinical practice for decision making about individual patients. However, our findings do raise some concerns about the use of such measures for performance management.
doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-217
PMCID: PMC2577652  PMID: 18945357
2.  The MS Symptom and Impact Diary (MSSID): psychometric evaluation of a new instrument to measure the day to day impact of multiple sclerosis 
Objectives: This study aimed to develop further a diary originally devised to measure the impact of multiple sclerosis (MS) as part of a cost utility study of beta interferon, and to evaluate its reliability, validity, and responsiveness in an outpatient sample of people with MS.
Methods: The original diary was further developed using qualitative and quantitative methods to ensure that it addressed the views of people with MS. The psychometric properties of the MS Symptom and Impact Diary (MSSID) were evaluated in a sample of 77 people who completed the MSSID daily for 12 weeks. Internal and test–retest reliability, discriminant and convergent validity, and responsiveness were assessed using traditional psychometric methods.
Results: The MSSID formed three, internally consistent scales that measured mobility, fatigue, and the overall impact of MS. The test–retest reliability of the mobility scale was adequate for individual comparisons (ICC>0.90) and the fatigue and overall impact scales were adequate for group comparisons (ICC>0.70). The MSSID was able to distinguish between clinical groups depending on clinical course, indoor ambulation status, and relapse status. It demonstrated associations with other single point instruments in the expected direction. Compared with single point instruments, its responsiveness was similar or better, especially in detecting short term improvements in functioning.
Conclusions: The MSSID may provide a useful complement to currently available instruments to measure the outcomes of MS within clinical trials. Further research is needed to explore its feasibility in the context of a randomised controlled trial and its utility for clinicians.
doi:10.1136/jnnp.2003.020529
PMCID: PMC1739024  PMID: 15026500
3.  Searching for information on outcomes: do you need to be comprehensive? 
Quality in Health Care : QHC  1998;7(3):163-167.
The concepts of evidence-based practice and clinical effectiveness are reliant on up to date, accurate, high quality, and relevant information. Although this information can be obtained from a range of sources, computerised databases such as MEDLINE offer a fast, effective means of bringing up to date information to clinicians, as well as health service and information professionals. Common problems when searching for information from databases include missing important relevant papers or retrieving too much information. Effective search strategies are therefore necessary to retrieve a manageable amount of relevant information. This paper presents a range of strategies which can be used to locate information on MEDLINE efficiently and effectively.
PMCID: PMC2483607  PMID: 10185143
5.  Syphilis in the Royal Navy 
British Medical Journal  1900;2(2082):1497.
PMCID: PMC2464123  PMID: 20759285

Results 1-5 (5)