Reliability, validity and practicability of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx) following an e-learning programme: A clinimetric study

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING Intensive and Critical Care Nursing Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-29 DOI:10.1016/j.iccn.2025.103959
Sabrina Eggmann , Angela Kindler , Roger Hilfiker , Peter Nydahl
{"title":"Reliability, validity and practicability of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx) following an e-learning programme: A clinimetric study","authors":"Sabrina Eggmann ,&nbsp;Angela Kindler ,&nbsp;Roger Hilfiker ,&nbsp;Peter Nydahl","doi":"10.1016/j.iccn.2025.103959","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To investigate inter- and intra-rater reliability, content and concurrent validity, and practicability of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx) – a measurement instrument for physical function and activity for patients with a critical illness – from multidisciplinary, German-speaking healthcare professionals.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a prospective, longitudinal, clinimetric study. Participants who completed a novel German CPAx e-learning were invited to participate in a voluntary, web-based, piloted, two-round survey. The two rounds were separated by 3–4 weeks to limit recollection of the two patient videos within the e-learning. Following informed consent, we collected participants’ characteristics, their CPAx ratings and scoring-duration for the two video cases, content validity indexes along with questions on the practicability of the CPAx. Data was analysed descriptively, quantitatively using Bayesian methods, and qualitatively with an inductive content approach.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In total, 61 clinicians (53 (87 %) physiotherapists, 6 (10 %) nurses, 2 (3 %) occupational therapists) from Switzerland (37 (64 %)), Germany (13 (22 %)), and Austria (8 (14 %)) participated. Inter- (n = 61) and intra-rater (n = 35) reliability for the CPAx were excellent (intraclass correlation coefficients of &gt; 0.8). Content validity index of the CPAx showed a high relevance (&gt; 0.9), though novice users slightly differed from the expert rating (concurrent validity). Healthcare professionals described the CPAx as a practical tool to plan and evaluate physical rehabilitation with a total scoring duration of 5 min, whereby lack of routine, time, and application were seen as barriers in clinical practice.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This study demonstrated the German CPAx as a highly reliable (between and within raters), relevant and practical tool across professions, settings, and countries. These results support an online training, whereby future work should focus on consensus and application into clinical practice.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for Clinical practice</h3><div>Following an e-learning, the CPAx can be used reliably by multidisciplinary, German-speaking healthcare professionals potentially enhancing physical rehabilitation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51322,"journal":{"name":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","volume":"87 ","pages":"Article 103959"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964339725000205","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate inter- and intra-rater reliability, content and concurrent validity, and practicability of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx) – a measurement instrument for physical function and activity for patients with a critical illness – from multidisciplinary, German-speaking healthcare professionals.

Methods

This was a prospective, longitudinal, clinimetric study. Participants who completed a novel German CPAx e-learning were invited to participate in a voluntary, web-based, piloted, two-round survey. The two rounds were separated by 3–4 weeks to limit recollection of the two patient videos within the e-learning. Following informed consent, we collected participants’ characteristics, their CPAx ratings and scoring-duration for the two video cases, content validity indexes along with questions on the practicability of the CPAx. Data was analysed descriptively, quantitatively using Bayesian methods, and qualitatively with an inductive content approach.

Results

In total, 61 clinicians (53 (87 %) physiotherapists, 6 (10 %) nurses, 2 (3 %) occupational therapists) from Switzerland (37 (64 %)), Germany (13 (22 %)), and Austria (8 (14 %)) participated. Inter- (n = 61) and intra-rater (n = 35) reliability for the CPAx were excellent (intraclass correlation coefficients of > 0.8). Content validity index of the CPAx showed a high relevance (> 0.9), though novice users slightly differed from the expert rating (concurrent validity). Healthcare professionals described the CPAx as a practical tool to plan and evaluate physical rehabilitation with a total scoring duration of 5 min, whereby lack of routine, time, and application were seen as barriers in clinical practice.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated the German CPAx as a highly reliable (between and within raters), relevant and practical tool across professions, settings, and countries. These results support an online training, whereby future work should focus on consensus and application into clinical practice.

Implications for Clinical practice

Following an e-learning, the CPAx can be used reliably by multidisciplinary, German-speaking healthcare professionals potentially enhancing physical rehabilitation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
切尔西重症监护体格评估工具(CPAx)在电子学习计划后的可靠性、有效性和实用性:一项临床研究
目的:调查来自多学科、讲德语的医疗保健专业人员的切尔西重症监护身体评估工具(CPAx)的内部和内部信度、内容和同时效度以及实用性。CPAx是一种用于危重疾病患者身体功能和活动的测量工具。方法:这是一项前瞻性、纵向、临床研究。完成一项新颖的德国CPAx电子学习的参与者被邀请参加一项自愿的、基于网络的试点两轮调查。这两轮学习间隔3-4周,以限制在电子学习中对两个患者视频的回忆。根据知情同意,我们收集了参与者的特征,他们对两个视频案例的CPAx评分和评分时间,内容效度指标以及CPAx的实用性问题。数据分析描述性,定量使用贝叶斯方法,定性与归纳内容的方法。结果:共有61名临床医生(53名(87%)物理治疗师,6名(10%)护士,2名(3%)职业治疗师)来自瑞士(37名(64%)),德国(13名(22%))和奥地利(8名(14%))参与。CPAx的组间信度(n = 61)和组内信度(n = 35)极好(组内相关系数为>.8)。CPAx的内容效度指数显示出较高的相关性(> 0.9),尽管新手用户与专家评分略有差异(并发效度)。医疗保健专业人员将CPAx描述为计划和评估物理康复的实用工具,总评分持续时间为5分钟,因此缺乏常规,时间和应用被视为临床实践中的障碍。结论:本研究表明,德国CPAx是一个高度可靠的(在评分者之间和内部),相关的和实用的工具,跨越专业,设置和国家。这些结果支持在线培训,因此未来的工作应侧重于共识和应用到临床实践。临床实践意义:通过电子学习,CPAx可以被多学科、讲德语的医疗保健专业人员可靠地使用,可能会增强身体康复。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
15.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: The aims of Intensive and Critical Care Nursing are to promote excellence of care of critically ill patients by specialist nurses and their professional colleagues; to provide an international and interdisciplinary forum for the publication, dissemination and exchange of research findings, experience and ideas; to develop and enhance the knowledge, skills, attitudes and creative thinking essential to good critical care nursing practice. The journal publishes reviews, updates and feature articles in addition to original papers and significant preliminary communications. Articles may deal with any part of practice including relevant clinical, research, educational, psychological and technological aspects.
期刊最新文献
Understanding Delphi methodology – Part 3: Reporting standards, challenges, and biases Lower quadriceps muscle mass assessed by ultrasound predicts intensive care unit mortality: A cohort study with prospective data collection Sound levels in single vs. double bed ICU rooms: A high-resolution sound study Impacts of time pressure during the ICU handover safety check of critical care nurses: A randomised eye-tracking analysis A systematic review with evidence mapping of alarm management interventions in intensive care units
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1