Pilot Validation Study: Canadian Global Rating Scale for Colonoscopy Services
Background. The United Kingdom Global Rating Scale (GRS-UK) measures unit-level quality metrics processes in digestive endoscopy. We evaluated the psychometric properties of its Canadian version (GRS-C), endorsed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG). Methods. Prospective data collec...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2016-01-01
|
| Series: | Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6982739 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832549004956663808 |
|---|---|
| author | Stéphanie Carpentier Nour Sharara Alan N. Barkun Sara El Ouali Myriam Martel Maida J. Sewitch |
| author_facet | Stéphanie Carpentier Nour Sharara Alan N. Barkun Sara El Ouali Myriam Martel Maida J. Sewitch |
| author_sort | Stéphanie Carpentier |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background. The United Kingdom Global Rating Scale (GRS-UK) measures unit-level quality metrics processes in digestive endoscopy. We evaluated the psychometric properties of its Canadian version (GRS-C), endorsed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG). Methods. Prospective data collection at three Canadian endoscopy units assessed GRS-C validity, reliability, and responsiveness to change according to responses provided by physicians, endoscopy nurses, and administrative personnel. These responses were compared to national CAG endoscopic quality guidelines and GRS-UK statements. Results. Most respondents identified the overarching theme each GRS-C item targeted, confirming face validity. Content validity was suggested as 18 out of 23 key CAG endoscopic quality indicators (78%, 95% CI: 56–93%) were addressed in the GRS-C; statements not included pertained to educational programs and competency monitoring. Concordance ranged 75–100% comparing GRS-C and GRS-UK ratings. Test-retest reliability Kappa scores ranged 0.60–0.83, while responsiveness to change scores at 6 months after intervention implementations were greater (P<0.001) in two out of three units. Conclusion. The GRS-C exhibits satisfactory metrics, supporting its use in a national quality initiative aimed at improving processes in endoscopy units. Data collection from more units and linking to actual patient outcomes are required to ensure that GRS-C implementation facilitates improved patient care. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-10337241799143dd84d303739dfb2a82 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2291-2789 2291-2797 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2016-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology |
| spelling | doaj-art-10337241799143dd84d303739dfb2a822025-02-03T06:12:19ZengWileyCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology2291-27892291-27972016-01-01201610.1155/2016/69827396982739Pilot Validation Study: Canadian Global Rating Scale for Colonoscopy ServicesStéphanie Carpentier0Nour Sharara1Alan N. Barkun2Sara El Ouali3Myriam Martel4Maida J. Sewitch5Division of Gastroenterology, McGill University and McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, CanadaDivision of Gastroenterology, McGill University and McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, CanadaDivision of Gastroenterology, McGill University and McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, CanadaDivision of Gastroenterology, McGill University and McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, CanadaDivision of Gastroenterology, McGill University and McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, CanadaDivision of Gastroenterology, McGill University and McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, CanadaBackground. The United Kingdom Global Rating Scale (GRS-UK) measures unit-level quality metrics processes in digestive endoscopy. We evaluated the psychometric properties of its Canadian version (GRS-C), endorsed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG). Methods. Prospective data collection at three Canadian endoscopy units assessed GRS-C validity, reliability, and responsiveness to change according to responses provided by physicians, endoscopy nurses, and administrative personnel. These responses were compared to national CAG endoscopic quality guidelines and GRS-UK statements. Results. Most respondents identified the overarching theme each GRS-C item targeted, confirming face validity. Content validity was suggested as 18 out of 23 key CAG endoscopic quality indicators (78%, 95% CI: 56–93%) were addressed in the GRS-C; statements not included pertained to educational programs and competency monitoring. Concordance ranged 75–100% comparing GRS-C and GRS-UK ratings. Test-retest reliability Kappa scores ranged 0.60–0.83, while responsiveness to change scores at 6 months after intervention implementations were greater (P<0.001) in two out of three units. Conclusion. The GRS-C exhibits satisfactory metrics, supporting its use in a national quality initiative aimed at improving processes in endoscopy units. Data collection from more units and linking to actual patient outcomes are required to ensure that GRS-C implementation facilitates improved patient care.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6982739 |
| spellingShingle | Stéphanie Carpentier Nour Sharara Alan N. Barkun Sara El Ouali Myriam Martel Maida J. Sewitch Pilot Validation Study: Canadian Global Rating Scale for Colonoscopy Services Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology |
| title | Pilot Validation Study: Canadian Global Rating Scale for Colonoscopy Services |
| title_full | Pilot Validation Study: Canadian Global Rating Scale for Colonoscopy Services |
| title_fullStr | Pilot Validation Study: Canadian Global Rating Scale for Colonoscopy Services |
| title_full_unstemmed | Pilot Validation Study: Canadian Global Rating Scale for Colonoscopy Services |
| title_short | Pilot Validation Study: Canadian Global Rating Scale for Colonoscopy Services |
| title_sort | pilot validation study canadian global rating scale for colonoscopy services |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6982739 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT stephaniecarpentier pilotvalidationstudycanadianglobalratingscaleforcolonoscopyservices AT noursharara pilotvalidationstudycanadianglobalratingscaleforcolonoscopyservices AT alannbarkun pilotvalidationstudycanadianglobalratingscaleforcolonoscopyservices AT saraelouali pilotvalidationstudycanadianglobalratingscaleforcolonoscopyservices AT myriammartel pilotvalidationstudycanadianglobalratingscaleforcolonoscopyservices AT maidajsewitch pilotvalidationstudycanadianglobalratingscaleforcolonoscopyservices |