scholarly journals Enabling people with communication and cognitive impairments to provide feedback on service satisfaction: development and reliability testing of an adapted pictorial questionnaire

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Katrina Clarkson ◽  
Lynne Turner Stokes ◽  
Carol Sacchett ◽  
Stephen Ashford

Introduction/aims Evaluation of patient satisfaction with health services is mandatory within the UK, but patients with communication difficulties are often excluded by their inability to complete written questionnaires. This study examines the test–retest reliability and agreement of an adapted, pictorial patient satisfaction questionnaire, based on the Talking Mats technique. Methods A total of 26 participants, who had a range of communication impairments resulting from brain injury, completed two questionnaires while in specialist rehabilitation: a standard written and adapted pictorial questionnaire, at two time points to evaluate test–retest reliability. Agreement between the two questionnaire formats was also examined. Results Test–retest reliability in overall scores between Time 1 and 2 was substantial for both the adapted pictorial questionnaire (k=0.72 [95% confidence interval 0.388, 0.76]) and the standard written questionnaire (ϰ=0.78 [95% confidence interval 0.74, 0.82]). Overall agreement between the two techniques was ϰ=0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.73, 0.79). Eighty-six per cent of questions for patients with aphasia showed at least ‘moderate’ agreement between the two questionnaire types compared with only 67% in participants with cognitive communication disorder. Conclusions The adapted pictorial questionnaire is a reliable tool for people with brain injury who have aphasia, enabling some patients to provide service satisfaction feedback who would have otherwise been excluded using a written questionnaire.

Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mia Rodziewicz ◽  
Terence O'Neill ◽  
Audrey Low

Abstract Background/Aims  Rheumatology departments were required to switch rapidly from face-to-face (F2F) to remote consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. We conducted a patient satisfaction survey on the switch to inform future service development. Methods  All patients [new (NP), follow-up (FU)] were identified between 1st to 5th June 2020. Patients who attended or did not attend (DNA) a pre-booked F2F consultation or cancelled were excluded. Of the remainder, half the patients was surveyed by phone using a standardised questionnaire and the other half was posted the same questionnaire. Both groups were offered the opportunity to complete the survey online. Patients were surveyed on the organisation and content of the consultation, whether they were offered a subsequent F2F appointment and future consultation preference. Results  233 consultations were scheduled during the study period. After 53 exclusions (34 pre-booked F2F, 16 DNA, 3 cancellations), 180 eligible consultations were surveyed (85 via mailshot, 95 by telephone). 75/180 patients (42%) responded within 1 month of the telephone consultation (20 NP, 47 FU, 8 missing). The organisation of the switch was positively perceived (Table). Patients were highly satisfied with 4 of the 5 consultation domains but were undecided whether a physical assessment would have changed the outcome of the consultation (Table). After the initial phone consultation, 7 of 20 NP and 19 of 47 FU were not offered subsequent F2F appointments at the clinicians’ discretion. Of those not offered subsequent F2F appointments, proportionally more NP (3/7, 43%) would have liked one, compared to FU (5/19, 26%). Reasons included communication difficulties and a desire for a definitive diagnosis. 48/75 (64%) would be happy for future routine FU to be conducted by phone “most of the time" or "always”; citing patient convenience and disease stability. Caveats were if physical examination was required or if more serious issues (as perceived by the patient) needed F2F discussion. Conclusion  Patients were generally satisfied with telephone consultations and most were happy to be reviewed again this way. NPs should be offered F2F appointments for first visits to maximise patient satisfaction and time efficiency. P071 Table 1:Median age, yearsFemale; n (%)Follow-up; n (%)All eligible for survey; n = 18056122 (68)133 (74)Sent mailshot; n = 855459 (69)65 (76)Surveyed by phone; n = 955663 (66)68 (72)Responder by mail; n = 166911 (69)13 (82)Responder by phone; n = 525437 (71)34 (65)Responder by e-survey; n = 7495 (71)UnknownOrganisation of the telephone consultation, N = 75Yes, n (%)No, n (%)Missing, n (%)Were you informed beforehand about the phone consultation?63 (84)11 (15)1 (1)Were you called within 1-2 hours of the appointed date and time?66 (88)6 (8)3 (4)Domains of the consultation, N = 75Strongly disagree, n (%)Disagree, n (%)Neutral, n (%)Agree, n (%)Strongly agree, n (%)Missing, n (%)During the call, I felt the clinician understood my problem3 (4)1 (1)1 (1)20 (27)49 (65)1 (1)During the call, I had the opportunity to ask questions regarding my clinical care1 (1)02 (3)16 (21)55 (73)1 (1)A physical examination would have changed the outcome of the consultation16 (21)18 (24)20 (27)11 (15)10 (13)0The clinician answered my questions to my satisfaction2 (3)06 (8)18 (24)49 (65)0At the end of the consultation, the clinician agreed a management plan with me3 (4)2 (3)6 (8)24 (32)39 (52)1 (1)Future consultations, N = 75Never, n (%)Sometimes, n (%)Most of the time, n (%)Always, n (%)Missing, n, (%)In the future, would you be happy for routine FU to be conducted by phone?5 (7)20 (27)16 (21)32 (43)2 (3) Disclosure  M. Rodziewicz: None. T. O'Neill: None. A. Low: None.


2002 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 481-481
Author(s):  
WILLIAM B. BARR ◽  
MICHAEL McCREA

The following is a correction for an error that occurred in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, Vol. 7, No. 6. The error occurred in the article titled “Sensitivity and specificity of standardized neurocognitive testing immediately following sports concussion,” pp. 693–702, by Barr and McCrea. On page 696, under the subheading “Test-Retest Reliability and Reliable Change Cut-off Scores”, the confidence interval in the third sentence should read “−2.21, +2.59”, rather than “±2.59”.


1997 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 50
Author(s):  
K L McCulloch ◽  
M T Gross ◽  
S T Ferguson ◽  
L L Kerr ◽  
C A Wills ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
pp. 177-185

Background: Assessment of the test-retest reliability of the Brain Injury Vision Symptom Survey (BIVSS), a self-administered survey for visual symptoms following mild to moderate traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods: Subjects (n=130, mean age 37 +/- 17.6, range 19 to 55) with mild-to-moderate TBI completed the 28-item BIVSS questionnaire two times (1-hr to 4-month separation interval). 25 subjects reported a history of medically diagnosed TBI, 5 an undiagnosed TBI, and 14 no history of injury. 87 subjects did not select a type of TBI diagnosis and were analyzed in the ‘not specified’ group. A scoring algorithm was developed for the BIVSS,1 and Rasch and Likert analyses performed. Bland-Altman charts illustrating methods of analyses were created and limits of agreement calculated. Results: A one sample t-test performed on both analyses for each patient group revealed no significant bias in scoring higher or lower on retest for any group with the exception of the ‘not specified’ group and Rasch analysis (n=87, t=3.41, p=0.01). When time between survey administrations is restricted to two weeks or less however, we see no significant difference for any group. Bland-Altman charts with 95% limits of agreement (+/- 0.40) revealed no significant change in direction of bias (Likert: p=0.92; Rasch: p=0.52) and consistency in distribution of values on retest (Likert: r=0.91; Rasch: r=0.25); the first administration accounting for 82.6% (r2) of variance at the second administration. Conclusions: The BIVSS has very good test retest reliability, and can serve as a suitable tool for assessing and quantifying visual symptoms associated with mild to moderate TBI. There is no significant bias in total BIVSS score between test administrations for either patients who have experienced TBI or non-injured patients. Future analysis of change in BIVSS subset scores concurrent with intervention could potentially reveal relationships between improvement in objective measurements and specific subjective subset scores.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 20
Author(s):  
Don Krieger ◽  
Paul Shepard ◽  
Ryan Soose ◽  
Ava M. Puccio ◽  
Sue Beers ◽  
...  

Neuroelectric measures derived from human magnetoencephalographic (MEG) recordings hold promise as aides to diagnosis and treatment monitoring and targeting for chronic sequelae of traumatic brain injury (TBI). This study tests novel MEG-derived regional brain measures of tonic neuroelectric activation for long-term test-retest reliability and sensitivity to symptoms. Resting state MEG recordings were obtained from a normative cohort, Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience (CamCAN), baseline: n = 619; mean 16-month follow-up: n = 253) and a chronic symptomatic TBI cohort, Targeted Evaluation, Action and Monitoring of Traumatic Brain Injury (TEAM-TBI), baseline: n = 64; mean 6-month follow-up: n = 39). For the CamCAN cohort, MEG-derived neuroelectric measures showed good long-term test-retest reliability for most of the 103 automatically identified stereotypic regions. The TEAM-TBI cohort was screened for depression, somatization, and anxiety with the Brief Symptom Inventory and for insomnia with the Insomnia Severity Index. Linear classifiers constructed from the 103 regional measures from each TEAM-TBI cohort member distinguished those with and without each symptom, with p < 0.01 for each—i.e., the tonic regional neuroelectric measures of activation are sensitive to the presence/absence of these symptoms. The novel regional MEG-derived neuroelectric measures obtained and tested in this study demonstrate the necessary and sufficient properties to be clinically useful—i.e., good test-retest reliability, sensitivity to symptoms in each individual, and obtainable using automatic processing without human judgement or intervention.


2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. E1-E16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Bogner ◽  
Gale G. Whiteneck ◽  
Jessica MacDonald ◽  
Shannon B. Juengst ◽  
Allen W. Brown ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 50-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matti V. Vartiainen ◽  
Marjo B. Rinne ◽  
Tommi M. Lehto ◽  
Matti E. Pasanen ◽  
Jaana M. Sarajuuri ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document