Medication administration evaluation tool design: An expert panel review

Abstract

Background: Tools currently available to evaluate nurse medication administration practices have limitations and are either not validated or have poor reliability. Aim: To identify criteria and content for inclusion in a tool to evaluate medication administration by nurses in the clinical setting, using an expert panel. Methods: A peer review process using an expert multidisciplinary panel rated the relevance of the content on three tools; Medication Administration Safety Assessment Tool, Medication with Respect Tool and Clinical Skills Assessment Tool, using a four-point rating scale. Expert opinion was provided on relevance of content, rating scales and frequency of nurse evaluation. The level of agreement was analysed by item content validity index, mean item content validity index, mean expert proportion, scale content validity index with universal agreement, probability of chance agreement and a modified kappa rating. Qualitative themes were also reviewed. Findings: The item and scale content validity index and the kappa index both rated the Medication Administration Safety Assessment Tool and Clinical Skills Assessment Tool as excellent. For the Medication with Respect Tool less than half of the item content validity index ratings rated as good and the kappa index rated as excellent, therefore the scale content validity did not achieve a good rating. Conclusions: The expert panel review identified items of high level of agreement for relevance and determined that content needed to be clear, concise, observable, generic and practical to be useful for all nurses. Self-evaluation, feedback and a developmental plan were also key criteria.

Evaluating nursing competence with the Nurse Competence Scale from an ontological and contextual point of view: An integrative literature review

“…26,36,37 Also the quality of care was important for job satisfaction and feeling of competence, [27][28][29][30][31][32] still Ensuring quality was the competence category getting most of the low VAS means, except in the study by Lima et al 44 The items in this category are demanding, encompassing critically evaluating the units' care philosophy, utilizing research findings to further develop patient care and making proposals for further development and research and require both knowledge and experience. 26 Due to contextual differences, specific instruments for specific contexts have been developed, such as the operating theater 9 and anesthetic care 7 and for specific skills as medical administration 65 and wound care. 66 Nursing managers seemed to have a good understanding of nursing work and if competence were to be evaluated on the basis of performance, there would be no differences in the evaluations between managers and nurses.…”

“…Due to contextual differences, specific instruments for specific contexts have been developed, such as the operating theater 9 and anesthetic care 7 and for specific skills as medical administration 65 and wound care. 66 Nursing managers seemed to have a good understanding of nursing work and if competence were to be evaluated on the basis of performance, there would be no differences in the evaluations between managers and nurses.…”

Adaptation and validation of pediatric peripheral intravenous catheter insertion and care practices audit tools

“…Items rated as relevant (highly, quite, and somewhat relevant) and revised items (minor or major) were considered as requiring modification. Items rated as not relevant were deleted from the tool [ 41 ]. Face validity was conducted by asking nurses and parents whether the questions used in the questionnaires are easily understood, logical, and consistent.…”

“…Items with I-CVI equivalent to >0.78 or higher are considered good enough to be included in the final tool [ 33 ]. The multi-rater kappa coefficient (κ) was then computed using the formula: κ =(I-CVI−Pc)/(1−Pc) [ 40 , 41 ]. Pc is the probability of a chance occurrence calculated using the formula: Pc = [N!/A!…”

Reaching Consensus on Global Health Competencies for Undergraduate Nurses in Indonesia: A Delphi Study

“…I-CVI was computed as the number of experts rating 3 or 4, divided by the number of experts. In addition, the scale (S-CVI) was obtained by averaging the I-CVI [15], [16], [17]. This study used a minimum index of 0.78 for I-CVI and 0.90 for S-CVI [18].…”