Validation of the MISSCARE-BRASIL survey - A tool to assess missed nursing care

Abstract

Objective:to analyze the metric validity and reliability properties of the MISSCARE-BRASIL survey. Method:methodological research conducted by assessing construct validity and reliability via confirmatory factor analysis, known-groups validation, convergent construct validation, analysis of internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The sample consisted of 330 nursing professionals, of whom 86 participated in the retest phase. Results:of the 330 participants, 39.7% were aides, 33% technicians, 20.9% nurses, and 6.4% nurses with administrative roles. Confirmatory factorial analysis demonstrated that the Brazilian Portuguese version of the instrument is adequately adjusted to the dimensional structure the scale authors originally proposed. The correlation between “satisfaction with position/role” and “satisfaction with teamwork” and the survey’s missed care variables was moderate (Spearman’s coefficient =0.35; p<0.001). The results of the Student’s t-test indicated known-group validity. Professionals from closed units reported lower levels of missed care in comparison with the other units. The reliability showed a strong correlation, with the exception of “institutional management/leadership style” (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.15; p=0.04). The internal consistency was adequate (Cronbach’s alpha was greater than 0.70). Conclusion:the MISSCARE-BRASIL was valid and reliable in the group studied. The application of the MISSCARE-BRASIL can contribute to identifying solutions for missed nursing care.

Situações e razões para a omissão do cuidado de enfermagem em unidades de clínica médica e cirúrgica

“…The internal consistency values of the five MISSCARE-BRASIL domains of Part B, which corresponded to the validation study of this instrument, resulted in a Cronbach's alpha greater than 0.70 (12) .…”

“…Data collection was performed using the personal and professional characterization form and the MISSCARE-BRASIL instrument (12) . The characterization form included the following information: age, gender, marital status, professional category and time since graduation, length of experience in the unit and institution, the presence of another employment relationship, and the following questions: "How do you evaluate the quality of care (from "very good" to "very poor") and "How do you feel about your current job?"…”

“…(responses from "very dissatisfied" to "very satisfied"). MISSCARE-BRASIL is a self-reported instrument developed by Kalisch and Williams (2009) (13) and validated for the Brazilian culture by Siqueira et al (2017) (12) . The purpose of this instrument is to evaluate missed care situations from the perception of the nursing team, and the reasons attributed by the professionals for not performing these care actions (12) .…”

“…MISSCARE-BRASIL is a self-reported instrument developed by Kalisch and Williams (2009) (13) and validated for the Brazilian culture by Siqueira et al (2017) (12) . The purpose of this instrument is to evaluate missed care situations from the perception of the nursing team, and the reasons attributed by the professionals for not performing these care actions (12) . It consists of 56 items divided into two parts: part A contains 28 items, which points to nursing care which is not performed, in a Likert scale ranging from 1 (never performed) to 5 (it is always performed); Part B has 28 items, which include the reasons why nursing care was not performed, assessed on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (significant reason) to 4 points (not a reason).…”

Atividades de trabalho e lombalgia crônica inespecífica em trabalhadores de enfermagem

“…The correlations between the variables pain intensity and WRAPI factors were analyzed by applying the Pearson or Spearman coefficient with the following classification: less than 0.4 (weak correlation), 0.4 to 0.74 (good/moderate correlation) and ≥ 0.75 (strong correlation). (15) The research was approved by the Research Ethics Committee involving Human Beings, protocol N. 2.081.192/2017 and CAAE. 64164717.1.0000.0121, and followed the recommendations of Resolution 466/12 of the National Health Council.…”