accompanied by an operational definition. 1st ROUND. - Process open to modifications. - âBrain stormingâ. - New items were generated and others were deleted.
Developing a Questionnaire to study wound care units in Spain Dr J. Verdú Soriano Dr J. Soldevilla Ágreda PhD Candidate H. González de la Torre
Wound Units – Wound Clinics • A growing topic in our country, but scarce information and literature. • It doesn’t exist an “official” registry • We don’t have enough knowledge regarding structure and functioning • Its our interest to study this theme (1st phase of a PhD Thesis)
st 1
step
To develop a questionnaire to gather information about wound units/clinics in Spain, through a Delphi consensus method.
Recruitment 10 experts were recruited. Eligible by professional profile and curriculum. 9 men and 1 woman 8 Nurses – 1 medical doctor – 1 podologist. 8 of them with PhD level.
1 1
2
1
As an essential requisite, they not were working at any wound clinic at that moment.
1 2 2 • Each expert was assigned to a confidential code and were blinded to the other experts. • All the participants signed a confidentiality letter. • Communication method was made by e-mail
Delphi Phases - A questionnaire with 42 items, divided into 4 areas, was generated. - Each item was accompanied by an operational definition
1st ROUND - Process open to modifications - “Brain storming” - New items were generated and others were deleted
2nd ROUND
- VALID ITEM
- Proposals were evaluated and new items were constructed, with new operational definitions
- NON VALID ITEM
- First version 51 items
Experts must to evaluate each item and score as:
Delphi Phases Analysis and counting of votes: - Approved: Items with 9 – 10 valid votes
These non approved 15 items were re-evaluated and modified
30 Items - Non approved: Items with 2 or more non valid votes
3rd ROUND Experts assessed those items and newly scored it.
15 Items - Approved with modifications: Despite having scores with 9 -10 valid votes were modified according to suggestions
4 Items 2 Items
-
1 item = 2 non valid votes 4 items = 1 non valid vote 10 items = 10 valid votes 3 of them were modified
Delphi Phases FINAL ROUND
A final questionnaire with 49 items. Expert test described by Polit & Hungler for content validity Index (CVI). 2 Criteria:
Pertinence: item assesses what is intended to evaluate 1. non pertinent, 2. little pertinent, 3. pertinent, 4. highly pertinent
Relevance: importance of the item. 1. non relevant, 2. little relevant, 3. relevant, 4. highly relevant
CONCLUSION Finally, a questionnaire with good content validity and structured in 4 dimensions: • Unit-Clinic Identification: items with useful information to create a national registry of wound clinics. • Organization and structure: Data about how the unit is internally structured.
• Services offered: Services offered by the clinic. • Internal functioning: in-deep knowledge about how the professionals involved interact and the pathways in and around the unit.
Next steps forward… • At present, we are using the questionnaire to collect data about wound clinics in our country. • Feedback from the coordinators/leaders of the wound clinics to refine and improve the questionnaire. • Perhaps, in a near future, the questionnaire could be adapted to use in other contexts/countries.
