RNSurveyNursing open2019

A psychometric analysis of the Caring Assessment Tool version V.

Jenny Sim, Samuel Lapkin, Joanne Joyce and 3 others

PMID 31367429

WHAT IT FOUND

In 476 hospital patients, a survey of nurses' caring did not work as one single score.

It split into nurse-patient communication and feeling cared for, and both were consistent.

Key findings

01In 476 analysed surveys, the original one-score model for the 27-item CAT-V did not fit the Australian patient data well.

02The data fit two related areas: nurse-patient communication with 17 items and feeling cared for with 10 items, accounting for 72.44% of variance.

03The two areas showed high internal consistency (α = 0.97 and α = 0.96) and a strong correlation (r = 0.83).

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only 476 of 2,103 completed surveys were analysed, because 1,627 surveys had more than one missing item, so the results may not represent all patients who were surveyed. Participants came from three private hospitals in one Australian state, so the findings may not apply to other hospitals or countries. Patients reported their own experience before discharge, which may be affected by memory, wanting to please staff, or not being invited because of unexpected discharge, absence of key staff, busy wards, or missing information. The study tested how patients perceived nurses' caring, not whether those perceptions changed patient outcomes. The original one-score model was rejected, so a single total score may not represent the Australian data.

Declared interests

The supplied text does not report funding or conflicts of interest. It states that permission to use the CAT-V was obtained under licence from QualiCare.

The easy way to misread this

Do not treat the 27-item CAT-V as one overall caring score. In these Australian patient data the one-score model fit poorly, and two related areas fit better.

Read it on PubMed →