ACIC-S
Disease management programs (DMPs) in the Netherlands are based on the chronic care model (CCM) introduced by Edward Wagner. The CCM clusters six interrelated components of health care systems: health care organization, community linkages, self-management support, delivery system design, decision support and clinical information systems. The idea is to transform chronic disease care from acute and reactive to proactive, planned, and population-based.
The Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) is based on six areas of system change suggested by the CCM and was developed to help disease management teams identify areas for improvement in chronic illness care and evaluate the level and nature of improvements made in their system. Research shows that the ACIC appears sensitive to interventions across chronic illnesses and helps teams focus their efforts on adopting evidence-based chronic care changes. As such the ACIC represents a useful tool to investigate the progress of DMPs over time.
We aimed to validate the original ACIC in the Netherlands as an instrument to evaluate the level and nature of improvements made by DMPs. The cumbersome length of the ACIC (34 items), however, led us to perform an item reduction analysis and develop a short version (ACIC-S). The results of the confirmatory factor analyses revealed good indices of fit with the ACIC-S. As indicated by the high reliability coefficient, the scale showed good internal consistency. In case the original ACIC is considered too lengthy, the ACIC-S is thus a good alternative. Base line scores were generally similar across teams addressing different chronic illnesses and, like the original ACIC, the ACIC-S consistently showed improvement after intervention across CCM elements.
In line with earlier research on the ACIC, both the ACIC and the ACIC-S appear to be sensitive to intervention across different DMPs aimed at various chronic illnesses, helping teams focus their efforts on adopting evidence-based chronic care changes. Based on our research we conclude that the psychometric properties of the ACIC and the ACIC-S are good and the ACIC-S is a promising alternate instrument to evaluate the level and nature of improvements made in DMPs.
The Assessment of Chronic Illness Care Short version (ACIC-S) consists of 21 items covering the six areas of the chronic care model: healthcare organization (n = 3), community linkages (n = 3), self-management support (n = 3), delivery system design (n = 3), decision support (n = 3), and clinical information systems (n = 3). Additional items integrate the six components, such as by linking patients’ self-management goals to information systems (n = 3). Responses to Assessment of Chronic Illness Care Short version items (e.g., “evidence-based guidelines are available and supported by provider education”) fall within four descriptive levels of implementation ranging from “little or none” to “fully implemented intervention.” Within each of the four levels, respondents are asked to choose the degree to which that description applied. The result is a 0–11 scale, with categories defined as 0–2 (little or no support for chronic illness care), 3–5 (basic or intermediate support), 6–8 (advanced support), and 9–11 (optimal or comprehensive integrated care for chronic illness). Subscale scores for the areas of the chronic care model are derived by calculating the average score for all items in that subsection of items.Mean subscale scores were calculated if at least 2 out of 3 items were available. Total scale scores were calculated by average scores on the subsections (when at least 4 out of 7 subsections were available).
English version:
- health care organization
ACIC_S_1: Overall organizational leadership in chronic illness care
ACIC_S_2: Organizational goals for chronic care
ACIC_S_3: Improvement strategy for chronic illness care
- community linkages
ACIC_S_4: Linking patients to outside resources
ACIC_S_5: Partnership with community organizations
ACIC_S_6: Regional health plans
- self-management support
ACIC_S_7: Assessment and documentation of self-management needs and activities
ACIC_S_8: Self-management support
ACIC_S_9: Addressing concerns of patients and families
- delivery system design
ACIC_S_10: Evidence-based guidelines
ACIC_S_11: Providing education for chronic illness care
ACIC_S_12: Informing patients about guidelines
- decision support
ACIC_S_13: Follow-up
ACIC_S_14: Planned visits for chronic illness care
ACIC_S_15: Continuity of care
- clinical information systems
ACIC_S_16: Feedback
ACIC_S_17: Information about relevant subgroups of patients needing services
ACIC_S_18: Patient treatment plans
- Integration of components
ACIC_S_19: Informing patients about guidelines
ACIC_S_20: Routine follow-up for appointments patient assessments and goal planning
ACIC_S_21: Guidelines for chronic illness care
Dutch version:
- gehele gezondheidszorgsysteem
ACIC_S_1: Algemeen organisatorisch leiderschap in de zorg voor chronische aandoeningen
ACIC_S_2: Organisatorische doelstellingen in de zorg voor chronische aandoeningen
ACIC_S_3: Verbeteringsstrategie in de zorg voor chronische aandoeningen
- maatschappij
ACIC_S_4: Patiënten verwijzen naar externe mogelijkheden
ACIC_S_5: Samenwerkingsverbanden met organisaties in de omgeving
ACIC_S_6: Regionale zorgplannen
- zelfmanagement ondersteuning
ACIC_S_7: Nagaan en vastleggen van de behoeften en activiteiten van de patiënt ten aanzien van zelfmanagement
ACIC_S_8: Ondersteuning van zelfmanagement bij patiënten
ACIC_S_9: Ingaan op vragen en zorgen van patiënten en familieleden
- besliskundige ondersteuning
ACIC_S_10: Evidence-based richtlijnen / standaarden
ACIC_S_11: Nascholing voor zorgverleners op het gebied van de zorg voor patiënten
ACIC_S_12: Het informeren van patiënten over richtlijnen / standaarden
- organisatie van zorg
ACIC_S_13: Controles voor patiënten
ACIC_S_14: Geplande afspraken met patiënten
ACIC_S_15: Continuïteit van zorg
- klinische informatie systemen
ACIC_S_16: Feedback (terugkoppeling)
ACIC_S_17: Informatie ten aanzien van behoeften aan zorg van de patiënt
ACIC_S_18: Zorg / behandelplan van patiënten
- Integratie componenten van het chronische zorgmodel
ACIC_S_19: Het informeren van de patiënten over richtlijnen
ACIC_S_20: Routinematige follow-up van afspraken, patiëntenbeoordelingen en het stellen van doelen
ACIC_S_21: Richtlijnen voor de zorg voor chronische aandoeningen
Syntax
COMPUTE ACIC_S_healthcare_organization= mean.2 (ACIC_S_1, ACIC_S_2, ACIC_S_3).
COMPUTE ACIC_S_community= mean.2 (ACIC_S_4, ACIC_S_5, ACIC_S_6).
COMPUTE ACIC_S_selfmanagement= mean.2 (ACIC_S_7, ACIC_S_8, ACIC_S_9).
COMPUTE ACIC_S_delivery_system= mean.2 (ACIC_S_10, ACIC_S_11, ACIC_S_12).
COMPUTE ACIC_S_decision_support= mean.2 (ACIC_S_13, ACIC_S_14, ACIC_S_15).
COMPUTE ACIC_S_ICT= mean.2 (ACIC_S_16, ACIC_S_17, ACIC_S_18).
COMPUTE ACIC_S_integration= mean.2 (ACIC_S_19, ACIC_S_20, ACIC_S_21).
COMPUTE ACIC_S_total= mean.4 (ACIC_S_healthcare_organization, ACIC_S_community, ACIC_S_selfmanagement, ACIC_S_delivery_system, ACIC_S_decision_support, ACIC_S_ICT, ACIC_S_integration).
Publications
Cramm, J.M. & Nieboer, A.P. (2013). High-quality chronic care delivery improves experiences of chronically ill patients receiving care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 25 (6), 689-695. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzt065.
Cramm, J.M., Strating, M.M.H. & Nieboer, A.P. (2014). The Role of Team Climate in Improving the Quality of Chronic Care Delivery: A Longitudinal Study among Professionals Working with Chronically Ill Adolescents in Transitional Care Programmes. BMJ Open, 4:e005369. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005369.
Cramm, J.M. & Nieboer, A.P. (2014). A longitudinal study to identify the influence of quality of chronic care delivery on productive interactions between patients and (teams of) healthcare professionals within disease management programmes. BMJ Open, 4:e005914. doi: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005914.
Cramm, J.M. & Nieboer, A.P. (2013). Short and long term improvements in quality of chronic care delivery predit program sustainability. Social Science & Medicine, 101, 148-154. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.035.
Cramm, J.M. & Nieboer, A.P. (2012). Disease-management partnership functioning, synergy and effectiveness in delivering chronic-illness care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 24 (3), 279-285. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzs004.
Cramm, J.M. & Nieboer, A.P. (2012). THE CARE SPAN In The Netherlands, Rich Interaction Among Professionals Conducting Disease Management Led To Better Chronic Care. Health Affairs, 31 (11), 2493-2500. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1304.
Cramm, J.M. & Nieboer, A.P. (2012). Relational coordination promotes quality of chronic care delivery in Dutch disease-management programs. Health Care Management Review, 37 (4), 301-309. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e3182355ea4.
Hartgerink, J.M., Cramm, J.M., Bakker, T.J.E.M., Eijsden, R.A.M. van, Mackenbach, J.P. & Nieboer, A.P. (2012). The importance of relational coordination for integrated care delivery to older patients in the hospital. Journal of Nursing Management, 1-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01481.x.
For more information about the ACIC (different versions and availability in various languages) also visit the following website: http://www.improvingchroniccare.org/index.php?p=ACIC_Survey&s=35
PACIC-S
Glasgow and colleagues (2005) developed the ‘‘Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care’’ (PACIC) to assess patients perspective of integrated care delivery. It has internationally been used as an instrument to evaluate integrated care delivery within the primary care setting among patients with various chronic conditions. We describe the psychometric testing of the PACIC and PACIC-S among chronically ill patients. Our objectives are to validate the PACIC and PACIC-S among patients in the Netherlands and test its validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change.
The 11-item Patients’ assessment of Integrated Care Short version (PACIC-S) Scale is designed to evaluate chronically ill patients’ assessment of quality of integrated chronic care. Scores range from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicating a greater perception of involvement in self-management and receipt of integrated care delivery.
English version:
PACIC_S_1: Given choices on treatment to think about
PACIC_S_2: Satisfied that my care was well organized
PACIC_S_3: Helped to set specific goals to improve my eating or exercise
PACIC_S_4: Given a copy of my treatment plan
PACIC_S_5: Encouraged to go to a specific group/class to help me cope with my chronic illness
PACIC_S_6: Asked questions, either directly or on a survey, about my health habits
PACIC_S_7: Helped to make a treatment plan that I could do in my daily life
PACIC_S_8: Helped to plan ahead so I could take care of my illness even in hard times
PACIC_S_9: Asked how my chronic illness affects my life
PACIC_S_10: Contacted after a visit to see how things were going
PACIC_S_11: Told how my visits with other types of doctors, like the eye doctor or surgeon, helped my treatment
Dutch version:
PACIC_S_1: Werden mij keuzes in de behandeling gegeven waar ik over na kon denken
PACIC_S_2: Was ik tevreden over de organisatie van de zorg die ik kreeg
PACIC_S_3: Werd ik geholpen om specifieke doelen op te stellen om mijn eetgedrag en bewegingspatroon te verbeteren
PACIC_S_4: Werd mij een kopie van mijn behandelplan gegeven
PACIC_S_5: Werd ik aangemoedigd om naar eencursus of (groeps)bijeenkomst te gaan die mij zou kunnen helpen om te gaan met mijn chronische aandoening
PACIC_S_6: Werden mij direct of in een onderzoek vragen gesteld over mijn leefstijl (roken, bewegen, eten etc.)
PACIC_S_7: Werd ik geholpen een behandelplan te maken dat ik in mijn dagelijkse leven kon toepassen
PACIC_S_8: Werd ik geholpen om vooruit te plannen, zodat ik zelfs als ik me ziek of niet lekker voel met mijn chronische aandoening om kan gaan
PACIC_S_9: Werd mij gevraagd hoe mijn chronische aandoening mijn leven beïnvloedt
PACIC_S_10: Werd na een bezoek aan de huisarts, medisch specialist of verpleegkundige contact met mij opgenomen om nog eens te vragen hoe het met mij ging
PACIC_S_11: Werd mij verteld waarom mijn bezoek aan andere specialisten, zoals de oogarts/longarts/cardioloog, belangrijk zijn in mijn behandeling
Syntax
COMPUTE PACIC_S= mean.8 (PACIC_S_1, PACIC_S_2, PACIC_S_3, PACIC_S_4, PACIC_S_5, PACIC_S_6, PACIC_S_7, PACIC_S_8, PACIC_S_9, PACIC_S_10, PACIC_S_11).
Publications
Cramm, J.M. & Nieboer, A.P. (2013). High-quality chronic care delivery improves experiences of chronically ill patients receiving care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 25 (6), 689-695. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzt065.
Cramm, J.M., Shahab Jolani, Stef van Buuren, Nieboer, A.P. (2015). Better experiences with quality of care predict well-being of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the Netherlands. International Journal of Integrated Care. Apr–Jun; URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-114833.
Cramm, J.M. & Nieboer, A.P. (2014). A longitudinal study to identify the influence of quality of chronic care delivery on productive interactions between patients and (teams of) healthcare professionals within disease management programmes. BMJ Open, 4:e005914. doi: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005914.
Cramm, J.M. & Nieboer, A.P. (2013). The relationship between self-management abilities, quality of chronic care delivery, and wellbeing among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in The Netherlands. International Journal of COPD, 8, 209-214. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S42667.
Cramm, J.M., Rutten - van Molken, M.P.M.H. & Nieboer, A.P. (2012). The potential for integrated care programmes to improve quality of care as assessed by patients with COPD: early results from a real-world implementation study in The Netherlands. International Journal of Integrated Care, 12, 1-7. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10-1-113787/ijic2012-191.
For more information about the PACIC (different versions and availability in various languages) also visit the following website: http://www.improvingchroniccare.org/index.php?p=ACIC_Survey&s=35
O-PACIC
Glasgow and colleagues (2005) developed the ‘‘Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care’’ (PACIC) to assess patients perspective of integrated care delivery. It has internationally been used as an instrument to evaluate integrated care delivery within the primary care setting among patients with various chronic conditions (Cramm et al. 2012; Gugiu et al. 2010; Rosemann et al. 2009; Rosemann et al. 2007; Schmittdiel et al. 2007; Wensing et al. 2008). Patients are asked if their care was well organized, if they were given choices about their treatment to think about and if they were helped to make a treatment plan that they could fit in their daily life. Research indicates that these are all important issues to improve outcomes for older patients after hospitalization and reduce poor outcomes such as readmission, functional decline, leading to increased mortality, nursing home placement, and healthcare costs (Hart et al. 2002; Inouye et al. 1993; Lefevre et al. 1992; Sagar et al. 1996; Schwarz 2000; Wu et al. 2000). No data are available to date showing use of an instrument to assess older patients’ assessment of integrated care delivery after hospitalization. Cramm and Nieboer (2012c) developed the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care Short version (PACIC-S). This instrument, however, was shortened for chronically ill patients, not for this particular group investigating integrated care in this particular context. Therefore, objectives of this study were to develop and validate an adequate and reliable instrument to assess older patients’ experiences with integrated care delivery after hospitalization. Point of departure for the development of the scale was the PACIC.
The 10-item Older Patients’ assessment of Integrated Care (O-PACIC) Scale is designed to evaluate older patients’ assessment of integrated care (within primary care, community care or hospital care). Scores range from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicating a greater perception of involvement in self-management and receipt of integrated care delivery.
English version:
O_PACIC_1: Given choices on treatment to think about
O_PACIC_2: Asked to talk about any problems with my medicines or their effects
O_PACIC_3: Given a written list of things I should do to improve my health
O_PACIC_4: Shown how what I did to take care of my illness influenced my condition
O_PACIC_5: Asked to talk about my goals in caring for my illness
O_PACIC_6: Helped to set specific goals to improve my eating or exercise
O_PACIC_7: Encouraged to go to a specific group/class to help me cope with my illness
O_PACIC_8: Helped to make a treatment plan that I could do in my daily life
O_PACIC_9: Asked how my illness affects my life
O_PACIC_10: Contacted after a visit to see how things were going
Dutch version:
O_PACIC_1: Werden mij keuzes in de behandeling gegeven waar ik over na kon denken
O_PACIC_2: Werd mij gevraagd of ik ooit problemen heb met mijn medicijnen of de effecten ervan
O_PACIC_3: Werd mij een folder gegeven met adviezen om mijn gezondheid te verbeteren
O_PACIC_4: Werd mij uitgelegd hoe mijn eigen handelen of gedrag mijn gezondheid beïnvloedt
O_PACIC_5: Werd mij gevraagd om te vertellen wat ik zelf wil bereiken met de zorg voor mijn aandoening
O_PACIC_6: Werd ik geholpen om specifieke doelen op te stellen om mijn eetgedrag en bewegingspatroon te verbeteren
O_PACIC_7: Werd ik aangemoedigd om naar een cursus of (groeps)bijeenkomst te gaan die mij zou kunnen helpen om te gaan met mijn aandoening
O_PACIC_8: Werd ik geholpen een behandelplan te maken dat ik in mijn dagelijkse leven kon toepassen
O_PACIC_9: Werd mij gevraagd hoe mijn aandoening mijn leven beïnvloedt
O_PACIC_10: Werd na een bezoek aan de huisarts, medisch specialist of verpleegkundige contact met mij opgenomen om nog eens te vragen hoe het met mij ging
Syntax
COMPUTE O_PACIC= mean.7 (O_PACIC_1, O_PACIC_2, O_PACIC_3, O_PACIC_4, O_PACIC_5, O_PACIC_6, O_PACIC_7, O_PACIC_8, O_PACIC_9, O_PACIC_10).
Publications
Hartgerink, J., Cramm, J.M., Bakker, T., Mackenbach, J.P, Nieboer, A.P. (2015). The importance of older patients' experiences with care delivery for their quality of life after hospitalization. BMC Health Services Research.
Hartgerink, J.M., Cramm, J.M., Vos, J.B.M. de, Bakker, T.J.E.M., Steyerberg, E.W., Mackenbach, J.P. & Nieboer, A.P. (2014). Situational awareness, relational coordination and integrated care delivery to hospitalized elderly in The Netherlands: a comparison between hospitals. BMC Geriatrics, 14 (3). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-3.
For more information about the ACIC also visit the following website: http://www.improvingchroniccare.org/index.php?p=PACIC_survey&s=36
PSAT-S
Partnerships are increasingly used to enhance health service delivery in response to this explosion in chronic disease prevalence. While interprofessional health partnerships are internationally acknowledged as integral for comprehensive chronic illness care, the evidence for effectiveness of such partnerships is lacking. Theoretically, when partners effectively merge their perspectives, knowledge, and skills to create synergy, they create something new and valuable: a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Lasker and colleagues developed a framework that supports the people responsible for managing partnerships in realizing high levels of synergy. The Partnership Self-Assessment Tool (PSAT) was developed based on this framework by public health specialists for practical use by groups working to promote health and well-being in their communities. We describe the psychometric testing of the PSAT among professionals in twenty-two disease-management partnerships participating in quality improvement projects focused on chronic care in the Netherlands. Our objectives are to validate the PSAT in the Netherlands and to reduce the number of items of the original PSAT while maintaining validity and reliability.
The Partnership Self-Assessment Short Version Tool (PSAT-S) assesses four dimensions of disease management program or partnership functioning: leadership (n = 4; e.g., taking responsibility for the disease management program, inspiring and motivating professionals), efficiency (n = 3; e.g., how well the partnership uses the partners’ financial resources), administration and management (n = 4; e.g., evaluating the progress and impact of the partnership), and resources (n = 4; e.g., skills and expertise, connections to patient population). The Partnership Self-Assessment Tool is designed to evaluate how well collaborative processes are working and learn how to improve collaborative processes of partnerships. The tool applies to a broad array of partnerships. The measures are applicable to partnerships focusing on any kind of goal - not only those related to health - and to partnerships that bring together all combinations of people and organizations. Responses to all items were structured by a five-point Likert scale and dimension scores were derived by calculating the mean of responses within each concept.
English version:
- Leadership
PSAT_S_1: Taking responsibility for the partnership
PSAT_S_2: Inspiring or motivating people involved in the partnership
PSAT_S_3: Empowering people involved in the partnership
PSAT_S_4: Recruiting diverse people and organizations into the partnership
- Efficiency
PSAT_S_5: How well your partnership uses the partners' financial resources
PSAT_S_6: How well your partnership uses the partners' in-kind resources
PSAT_S_7: How well your partnership uses the partners' time
- Administration and Management
PSAT_S_8: Coordinating communication among partners
PSAT_S_9: Organizing partnership activities, including meetings and projects
PSAT_S_10: Evaluating the progress and impact of the partnership
PSAT_S_11: Minimizing the barriers to participation in the partnership's meetings and activities
- Non financial resources
PSAT_S_12: Skills and expertise
PSAT_S_13: Data and information
PSAT_S_14: Connections to target populations
PSAT_S_15: Influence and ability to bring people together for meetings and activities
Dutch version:
- Leiderschap
PSAT_S_1: Verantwoording nemen voor het samenwerkingsverband
PSAT_S_2: De mensen die bij het samenwerkingsverband betrokken zijn te inspireren of motiveren
PSAT_S_3: Het stimuleren van de eigen verantwoordelijkheid van de mensen die bij het samenwerkingsverband zijn betrokken
PSAT_S_4: Het bijeenbrengen van een verscheidenheid aan mensen en organisaties in het samenwerkingsverband
- Efficiency
PSAT_S_5: Hoe goed maakt uw samenwerkingsverband gebruik van van de financiële middelen van de partners?
PSAT_S_6: Hoe goed benut uw samenwerkingsverband de ‘in-natura’ bijdragen van de partners?
PSAT_S_7: Hoe goed benut uw samenwerkingsverband de tijd van de partners?
- Administratie en management
PSAT_S_8: Het coördineren van communicatie onder de partners
PSAT_S_9: Het organiseren van activiteiten van het samenwerkingsverband, inclusief vergaderingen en projecten
PSAT_S_10: Het evalueren van de vooruitgang en de impact van het samenwerkingsverband
PSAT_S_11: Het verlagen van de drempels voor deelname aan de vergaderingen en activiteiten van het samenwerkingsverband
- Niet financiële middelen
PSAT_S_12: Vaardigheden en expertise
PSAT_S_13: Gegevens en informatie
PSAT_S_14: Contacten met doelpopulaties
PSAT_S_15: Invloed en de gave om mensen bij elkaar te brengen voor vergaderingen en activiteiten
Syntax
COMPUTE PSAT_S_leadership = mean.3 (PSAT_S_1, PSAT_S_2, PSAT_S_3, PSAT_S_4).
COMPUTE PSAT_S_efficiency = mean.2 (PSAT_S_5, PSAT_S_6, PSAT_S_7).
COMPUTE PSAT_S_ administration_management = mean.3 (ACIC_S_8, ACIC_S_9, PSAT_S_10, PSAT_S_11).
COMPUTE PSAT_S_ Non_financial_resources = mean.3 (ACIC_S_12, PSAT_S_13, PSAT_S_14, PSAT_S_15).
Publications
Cramm, J.M., Strating, M.M.H. & Nieboer, A.P. (2011). Development and validation of a short version of the Partnership Self-Assessment Tool (PSAT) among professionals in Dutch Disease-management partnerships. BMC Research Notes, 4 (224). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-224.
Cramm, J.M., Phaff, S. & Nieboer, A.P. (2013). The role of partnership functioning and synergy in achieving sustainability of innovative programmes in community care. Health & Social Care in the Community, 21 (2), 209-215. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12008.
Cramm, J.M. & Nieboer, A.P. (2012). THE CARE SPAN In The Netherlands, Rich Interaction Among Professionals Conducting Disease Management Led To Better Chronic Care. Health Affairs, 31 (11), 2493-2500. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1304.
For more information about the PSAT please visit the following website: http://www.nccmt.ca/registry/view/eng/10.html
C-SASC
To date, researchers have lacked a validated instrument to measure stroke caregivers’ satisfaction with hospital care. We adjusted a validated patient version of satisfaction with hospital care for stroke caregivers and tested the 11-item caregivers’ satisfaction with hospital care (C-SASC hospital scale) on caregivers of stroke patients admitted to nine stroke service facilities in the Netherlands. This instrument can be used to assess satisfaction with care in general, the items are not just applicable for stroke care.
The final C-SASC hospital scale consists of 8 items measuring caregivers’ satisfaction with hospital care. Caregivers indicated their agreement with each item on a four-point scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree); higher total scores indicate greater satisfaction.
English version:
C_SASC_1: I have been treated with kindness and respect by the staff at the hospital
C_SASC_2: The staff attended to my personal needs while I was in hospital and tried to support me as much as possible
C_SASC_3: I was able to talk to the staff about any problems I might have had
C_SASC_4: I received all the information I wanted to about the causes and nature of the illness of the patient I take care of
C_SASC_5: The doctors did everything they could to make the patient I take care of well again
C_SASC_6: I am satisfied with the type of treatment the therapists have given the patient I take care of (e.g., physiotherapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy)
C_SASC_7: The patient I take care of has been treated with kindness and respect by hospital staff
C_SASC_8: The hospitalization process went smoothly
Dutch version:
C_SASC_1: Ik ben vriendelijk en met respect behandeld door de medewerkers in het ziekenhuis
C_SASC_2: De medewerkers van het ziekenhuis toonden begrip voor mijn zorgen en steunden mij zo goed mogelijk
C_SASC_3: Ik kon zo nodig over elk probleem met de medewerkers van het ziekenhuis praten
C_SASC_4: Ik heb alle informatie gekregen die ik wil hebben over de oorzaak en aard van de ziekte van mijn naaste
C_SASC_5: De artsen hebben al het mogelijke gedaan om mijn naaste weer beter te maken
C_SASC_6: Ik ben tevreden met het soort behandeling die de therapeuten mijn naaste gegeven hebben (bijvoorbeeld fysiotherapie, logopedie, ergotherapie)
C_SASC_7: Mijn naaste is vriendelijk en met respect behandeld door de medewerkers in het ziekenhuis
C_SASC_8: De opname in het ziekenhuis verliep voorspoedig
Syntax
COMPUTE C_SASC = mean.6 (C_SASC_1, C_SASC_2, C_SASC_3, C_SASC_4, C_SASC_5, C_SASC_6, C_SASC_7, C_SASC_8).
Publications
Cramm, J.M., Strating, M.M.H., Nieboer, A.P. (2011). Validation of the Caregivers’ Satisfaction with Stroke Care questionnaire: C-SASC hospital scale, Journal of Neurology. 258(6):1008-1012.