The Dutch Individualised Care Scale for patients and nurses - a psychometric validation study.
Sofie Theys, Ann Van Hecke, Reinier Akkermans and 1 others
PMID 32301170WHAT IT FOUND
Patients and nurses answered questions about individualised nursing care consistently, but the Dutch version of the scale did not fit the original structure on every test.
Key findings
01The Dutch ICS was analysed for 845 patients and 569 nurses.
02The questionnaire sections showed high consistency across patient and nurse responses.
03The original model did not meet every fit standard for both patient and nurse sections.
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
Patients with delirium, dementia, other mental illness, intellectual disability, or inability to read/speak Dutch were excluded, so the scale's performance in those groups is unknown. 193 patient cases and 37 nurse cases with missing items were removed, so the analysed sample is not the full collected sample. Test-retest reliability was not assessed, so it is unknown whether responses stay stable over time. Ward type was not modelled separately because power was insufficient, so differences across surgical, maternity, geriatric, rehabilitation, and internal medicine wards are unknown. Some items rated only fair for content validity were retained, and post hoc item correlations were added, so the final model may not reproduce in other samples. No specific cognitive impairment scales were used; competence was judged by ward nurses.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflict of interest. Funding came from the Federal Public Service for Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment and Ghent University, and the funders were not involved in the study.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that individualised nursing care improves patient outcomes. The study only tested a questionnaire, and the original model did not meet every fit standard.