Assessing the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure in sexual health nurses’ consultations
Tóm tắt
Increasingly healthcare policies emphasise the importance of person-centred, empathic care. Consequently, healthcare professionals are expected to demonstrate the ‘human’ aspects of care in training and in practice. The Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure is a patient-rated measure of the interpersonal skills of healthcare practitioners. It has been widely validated for use by healthcare professionals in both primary and secondary care. This paper reports on the validity and reliability of the CARE Measure with sexual health nurses. Patient questionnaires were collected for 943 consultations with 20 sexual health nurses. Participating patients self-completed the questionnaire immediately after the encounter with the nurse. The questionnaire included the ten item CARE Measure, the Patient Enablement Index, and overall satisfaction instruments. Construct validity was assessed through Spearman’s correlation and principal component analysis. Internal consistence was assessed through Cronbach’s alpha and the inter-rater reliability through Generalisability Theory. Data were collected in 2013 in Scotland. Female patients completed 68% of the questionnaires. The mean patient age was 28.8 years (standard deviation 9.8 years). Two of the 20 participating nurses withdrew from the study. Most patients (71.7%) regarded the CARE Measure items as very important to their consultation and the number of ‘not applicable’ and missing responses’ were low (2.6% and 0.1% respectively). The participating nurses had high CARE Measure scores; out of a maximum possible score of 50, the overall mean CARE measure score was 47.8 (standard deviation 4.4). The scores were moderately correlated with patient enablement (rho = 0.232, p = 0.001) and overall satisfaction (rho = 0.377, p = 0.001. Cronbach’s alpha showed the measure’s high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient = 0.95), but the inter-rater reliability could not be calculated due to the high achieved CARE Measure scores that varied little between nurses. Within this clinical context the CARE Measure has high perceived relevance and face validity. The findings support construct validity and some evidence of reliability. The high CARE Measure scores may have been due to sample bias. A future study which ensures a representative sample of patients on a larger group of nurses is required to determine whether the measure can discriminate between nurses.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Griffiths J, Speed S, Horne M, Keeley P. A caring professional attitude’: what service users and careers seek in graduate nurses and the challeng for educators. Nurse Educ Today. 2012;32(2):121–7.
Mercer SW, Reynolds WJ. Empathy and quality of care. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52(Suppl):S9–S12.
Stewart M, Brown JB, Weston WW, McWhinney I, McWilliam C, Freeman T. Patient-centered medicine: transforming the clinical method. 3nd ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Radcliffe Medical Press; 2013.
Reynolds W. The measurement and development of empathy in nursing. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2000.
Lelorain S, Brédart A, Dolbeault S, Sultan SA. Systematic review of the associations between empathy measures and patient outcomes in cancer care. Psychooncology. 2012;21(12):1255–64.
Neumann M, Bensing J, Mercer S, Ernstmann N, Ommen O, Pfaff H. Analyzing the “nature” and “specific” effectivesness of clinical empathy: a theoretical overview and contribution towards a theory-based research agenda. Pat Educ Couns. 2009;74:339–46.
Bikker AP, Mercer SW, Reilly D. A pilot prospective study on consultation and relational empathy, patient enablement, and health changes over 12 months in patients going to the Glasgow homoeopathic hospital. J Alt Comp Med. 2005;11(4):591–600.
Mercer SW, Neumann M, Wirtz W, Fitzpatrick B, Vojt G. General practitioner empathy, patient enablement, and patient-reported outcomes in primary care in an area of high socio-economic deprivation in Scotland: a pilot prospective study using structural equation modelling. Pat Educ Couns. 2008;73(2):40–245.
Mercer SW, Jani B, Wong SY, Watt GCM. Patient enablement requires physician empathy: a cross-sectional study of general practice consultations in areas of high and low socioeconomic deprivation in Scotland. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13:6.
Price S, Mercer SW, MacPherson H. Practitioner empathy, patient enablement and health outcomes: a prospective study of acupuncture patients. Pat Educ Couns. 2006;63(1–2):239–45.
Rakel DP, Hoeft TJ, Barrett BP, Chewning BA, Craig BM, Min Niu MS. Practitioner empathy and the duration of the common cold. Fam Med. 2009;41(7):494–501.
Yu J, Kirk M. Measurement of empathy in nursing research: systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2008;64:440–54.
Wensing M, Jung HP, Mainz J, et al. A systematic review of the literature on patient priorities for general practice care. Part 1:description of the research domain. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47:1573–88.
Fung CSC, Mercer SWA. Qualitative study of patients’ views on quality of primary care consultations in Hong Kong and comparison with the UK CARE measure. BMC Fam Pract. 2009;10:10.
Francis, R. (2013). Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. London: Report of the Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150407084003/http://www.midstaffspublicinquiry.com/report Accessed 14 June 2016.
Department of health [England]. Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. London: Department of Health; 2010.
The Scottish Government. The healthcare quality strategy for NHSScotland. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government; 2010.
World Health Organisation. The world health report 2008: primary health care, now more than ever. Geneva: WHO; 2008.
British Medical Council (2013). Good Medical Practice. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_medical_practice.asp Accessed 14 June 2016.
The Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC) (2015). The Code, Professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. http://www.nmc.org.uk/standards/code Accessed on 14 June 2016.
Royal College of Nursing Practice. The principles of nursing practice. https://www.rcn.org.uk/professional-development/principles-of-nursing-practice Accessed 11 July 2017.
Mercer SW, Watt GCM, Maxwell M, Heaney DH. The development and preliminary validation of the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure: an empathy-based consultation process measure. Fam Pract. 2004;21(6):699–705.
Bikker AP, Fitzpatrick B, Murphy D, Mercer SW. Measuring empathic, person-centred communication in primary care nurses: validity and reliability of the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16:149.
Mercer SW, McConnachie A, Maxwell M, Heaney D, Watt GCM. Relevance and practical use of the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure in general practice. Fam Pract. 2005;22:328–34.
Mercer SW, Hatch DJ, Murray A, Murphy DJ, Eva HW. Capturing patients’ views on communication with anaesthetists: the CARE measure. Clin Gov. 2008;13(2):128–37.
Mercer SW, Murphy DJ. Validity and reliability of the CARE measure in secondary care. Clin Gov. 2008;13:261–83.
Aomatsu M, Abe H, Yasui H, Suzuki T, Sato J, Ban N, Mercer SW. Validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the CARE measure in a general medicine outpatient setting. Fam Pract. 2014;31(1):118–26l.
Fung C, Hua A, Tam L, Mercer SW. Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the CARE measure in a primary care setting in Hong Kong. Fam Pract. 2009;26(5):398–406.
Hanževački M, Jakovina T, Bajić Ž, Tomac A, Mercer S. Reliability and validity of the Croatian version of consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure in primary care setting. Croat Med J 2015;56(1), 50-56.
Neumann M, Wirtz M, Bollschweiler E, Mercer SW, Warm M, Wolf J, Pfaff H. Determinants and patient-reported long-term outcomes of physician empathy in oncology: a structural equation modelling approach. Pat Educ Couns. 2007;69(1–3):63–75.
Dijk van I, Scholten Meilink Lenferink N, PLBJ L, Mercer SW, Weel van C, Hartman olde TC, AEM S. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the consultation and relational empathy measure in primary care. Fam Pract. 2017;34(1):119–24.
Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH). Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final report of the commission on social determinants of health. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2008.
Morgan S, Yoder LHA. Concept analysis of person-centered care. J Holist Nurs. 2012;30:6–15.
Papathanasiou I, Sklavou W, Kourkouta L. Holistic nursing care: theories and perspectives. American Journal of Nursing Science. 2013;2(1):1–5.
Peate I. Sexuality and sexual health promotion for the older person. BJN. 2004;13(4):188–93.
NHS Education for Scotland (NES). Sexual and reproductive health nursing competency portfolio. Edinburgh: NHS education for Scotland. 2011.
Bowling A. Research methods in health: investigating health and health services 4th edition. Maidenhead, GB: McGraw Hill; Open University Press; 2014.
Brennan, R. urGENOVA. http://www.education.uiowa.edu/centers/casma/computer-programs Accessed 14 June 2016.
Bloch. R., Norman, N. (2011). G String IV. http://fhsperd.mcmaster.ca/g_string/download/g_string_4_manual_611.pdf Accessed 11 March 2015.
NHS Health Research Authority: Is My Project Research? Decision Tool. http://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/research/ Accessed 11/02/2013.
NHS Health Research Authority (2017) Applying a proportionate approach to the process of seeking consent, HRA Guidance. https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/news-updates/hra-publishes-new-proportionate-consent-guidance/ Accessed 9/11/2017.
Griffin SJ, Kinmonth AL, Veltman MW, Gillaard S, Grant J, Stewart M. Effect on health-related outcomes of interventions to alter the interaction between patients and practitioners: a systematic review of trials. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2:595–608.
Howie JGR, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M, Walker JJA. Comparison of a patient enablement instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as outcome measure of primary care consultations. Fam Pract. 1998;15(2):165–71.