IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0210946.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Transfer Decision Difficulty Scale: Development and psychometric testing of emergency department visits by long-term care residents

Author

Listed:
  • Bor-An Chen
  • Hui-Hui Chien
  • Chun-Chung Chen
  • Hui-Tsai Chen
  • Chii Jeng

Abstract

Background and objectives: Nurses serve as gatekeepers of the health of long-term care facility (LTCF) residents and are key members deciding whether residents should visit an emergency department (ED). Inappropriate decisions as to ED visits may result in ED overcrowding, excessive medical expenses, and nosocomial infections. Currently, there is a lack of effective tools for assessing the barriers and level of difficulty experienced by LTCF nurses. The purposes of this study were to develop a Patient Transfer Decision Difficulty Scale (PTDDS) and test its effectiveness. Methods: This study randomly sampled LTCFs in Taiwan and surveyed two or three nurses in every institution selected. Registered return envelopes were provided for participants to return self-completed questionnaires. Three steps were used to develop the scale and items: in step I, the instrument was developed; in step II, psychometric testing was conducted, which entailed performing an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to verify the construct validity and reliability of the developed items; and in step III, a confirmation study was conducted using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling to cross-validate the factors and items. Results: The cumulative sum of variance explained by the measurement models of the three factors in the PTDDS was 63.54%.When deciding whether to transfer LTCF residents to EDs, the most pronounced barrier experienced by nurses were for judging the severity of “clinical episodes”, which had an explanatory power of 37.49%. The second and third pronounced barriers and decision difficulty experienced by nurses were “communication and information” and “timing of the residents’ emergency visits,” which explained 16.81% and 9.24% of the variance, respectively. Conclusions: The cross-validation results obtained using the EFA and CFA showed favorable reliability and validity of the PTDDS. For future studies, this study recommends performing large-scale investigations of the level of decision difficulty and related factors experienced by nurses in LTCFs of varying levels and types.

Suggested Citation

  • Bor-An Chen & Hui-Hui Chien & Chun-Chung Chen & Hui-Tsai Chen & Chii Jeng, 2019. "Patient Transfer Decision Difficulty Scale: Development and psychometric testing of emergency department visits by long-term care residents," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0210946
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210946
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210946
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210946&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0210946?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0210946. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.