Instrument for assessing (self)care competence in people with gastrostomy and their caregivers: a methodological study.
Luzia Raquel Lopes Pinheiro, Maria Alice Correia Brito, Célia Samarina Vilaça Brito Santos
PMID 41370586WHAT IT FOUND
A 34-item form was developed for nurses to assess gastrostomy self-care competency in people with gastrostomy and their caregivers.
Experts agreed the domains, and two observers rated 14 caregivers and 7 people with feeding stoma with strong agreement. Full validation is still needed.
Key findings
01The final form has six self-care competency domains and 34 items for assessing people with gastrostomy and their caregivers.
02Ten expert nurses agreed on 33 indicators after a focus group, and observation of 15 nursing consultations added an oral hygiene item.
03Two observers rated 14 caregivers and seven people with feeding stoma; agreement was perfect for knowledge, execution, and negotiation, and strong for self-monitoring, interpretation, and decision-making.
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 study reports early instrument development, not complete validation. Internal consistency, construct validity, and criterion validity are still needed. The expert group was small and specific: ten nurses, all female, from northern Portugal, so the wording may not fit other settings. The pre-test used only 18 participants, nine people with gastrostomy and nine caregivers, so it may not reveal all wording problems. The inter-rater check used 14 caregivers and seven people with feeding stoma, rated by two observers, so agreement may not generalise. The paper does not test whether using the form changes patient outcomes.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the strong agreement between two nurses as proof that the instrument is fully valid or that it improves patient care. This was a small inter-rater check, and the authors state that further validity testing is needed.