Development and Validation of a Chinese Version of the Readiness for Hospital Discharge Instrument After Initial Invasive Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage: A Methodological Study.
Jing Yan, Jianqin Zhao, Xiaoyun Zhao and 3 others
PMID 42552666WHAT IT FOUND
A Chinese 22-item questionnaire for patients with biliary drains asks about drain knowledge, coping, personal readiness and support.
It may help nurses spot gaps before discharge, but has not yet been shown to reduce complications or readmission.
Key findings
01The final instrument has 22 items covering knowledge (7 items), coping ability (7 items), personal status (5 items) and expected support (3 items).
02The 35 candidate items received an average content validity score of 0.98 from five experts.
03The scale's total agreement among items was 0.962, and its split-half agreement was 0.912.
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.
What it does not show
The sample came from one tertiary hospital in Suzhou, China, so results may not apply to other settings or countries. The factor structure was explored in the same 224 patients and was not confirmed in an independent sample. The questionnaire was not tested for stability over time with a test-retest design. Thirty-six of 260 completed surveys were excluded for missing data, leaving 224 analysed. Participants were required to have liver or bile duct cancer and normal comprehension, so it does not cover all patients with biliary drains. The study evaluated preliminary psychometric properties, not whether the questionnaire predicts complications or readmission.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that this questionnaire improves discharge or reduces readmission. The paper reports only consistency and factor results, not patient outcomes.