Explorando la validez de constructo del índice de Barthel en una muestra de pacientes hospitalizados españoles / Exploring the construct validity of the Barthel index in a sample of Spanish hospitalised patients

Objetivo: Examinar la validez de constructo del índice de Barthel en unidades de hospitalización de adultos. Métodos: Se realizó un análisis secundario en una muestra de 1.342 pacientes adultos ingresados en unidades de hospitalización. El análisis factorial confirmatorio del índice de Barthel no confirma su estructura unidimensional (CFA-1). Se exploraron dos métodos para encontrar una solución con un mejor ajuste. Se realizó la secuencia de los métodos clásicos de análisis factorial exploratorio y confirmatorio (CFA-2). Se realizó un modelo gráfico gaussiano y un análisis factorial confirmatorio (CFA-3). Se compararon tres modelos sobre una base de varios indicadores de bondad de ajuste. Resultados: Los resultados del CFA-1 (χ2 = 161.616; p < 0,001; RMSEA = 0,183) indicaron un mal ajuste entre el modelo y los datos obtenidos. El análisis factorial exploratorio proporcionó un modelo con dos dimensiones que explicaba 86% de la varianza y mejoró el indicador de bondad de ajuste en CFA-2 (χ2 = 846; p < 0,001; RMSEA = 0,133). El modelo gráfico gaussiano ofreció una solución con tres dimensiones que mejoró la bondad de ajuste con respecto a los modelos anteriores al eliminar el ítem continencia vesical (χ2 = 493; p < 0,001; RMSEA = 0,09). Conclusiones: El índice de Barthel no es una medida unidimensional de la capacidad funcional cuando se aplica en unidades de hospitalización de adultos. El modelo que mejor se ajusta tiene una estructura tridimensional (higiene, alimentación y eliminación, movilidad) que se relaciona con los dominios de los cuidados básicos.(AU)

Objective: Examine the construct validity of the Barthel Index in adult inpatient units. Methods: A secondary analysis was performed on a sample of 1342 adult patients admitted to inpatient units. A confirmatory factor analysis of the Barthel Index did not confirm its unidimensional structure (CFA-1). Therefore, two methods were explored to find a solution with a better fit. The sequence of the classical exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis methods was carried out (CFA-2). In contrast, a Gaussian graphical model and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA-3) were performed. Three models were compared on the basis of several goodness-of-fit indicators. Results: CFA-1 results (χ2 = 161616; P < .001; RMSEA = .183) indicated a poor fit between the model and the data. Exploratory factor analysis provided a model with two dimensions that explained 86% of the variance and improved the goodness-of-fit in CFA-2 (χ2 = 846; P < .001; RMSEA = .133). The Gaussian graphical model, by removing the item ‘Bladder’, offered a solution with three dimensions that improved the goodness-of-fit compared to the previous models (χ2 = 492; P < .001; RMSEA = .09). Conclusions: The Barthel Index is not a unidimensional measure of functional capacity when applied to adult inpatient units. The best-fitting model has a three-dimensional structure (Hygiene; Feeding and disposal; Mobility) that relates to the domains of care needs.

Exploring the construct validity of the Barthel index in a sample of Spanish hospitalised patients.

OBJECTIVE: Examine the construct validity of the Barthel Index in adult inpatient units. METHOD: A secondary analysis was performed on a sample of 1342 adult patients admitted to inpatient units. A confirmatory factor analysis of the Barthel Index did not confirm its unidimensional structure (CFA-1). Therefore, two methods were explored to find a solution with a better fit. The sequence of the classical exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis methods was carried out (CFA-2). In contrast, a Gaussian graphical model and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA-3) were performed. Three models were compared on the basis of several goodness-of-fit indicators. RESULTS: CFA-1 results (χ2 = 161,616; P < .001; RMSEA = .183) indicated a poor fit between the model and the data. Exploratory factor analysis provided a model with two dimensions that explained 86% of the variance and improved the goodness-of-fit in CFA-2 (χ2 = 846; P < .001; RMSEA = .133). The Gaussian graphical model, by removing the item 'Bladder', offered a solution with three dimensions that improved the goodness-of-fit compared to the previous models (χ2 = 492; P < .001; RMSEA = .09). CONCLUSION: The Barthel Index is not a unidimensional measure of functional capacity when applied to adult inpatient units. The best-fitting model has a three-dimensional structure (Hygiene; Feeding and disposal; Mobility) that relates to the domains of care needs.

Improving Nursing Assessment in Adult Hospitalization Units: A Secondary Analysis.

The main objective of this study was to analyze the impact of a multifaceted strategy to improve the assessment of functional capacity, risk of pressure injuries, and risk of falls at the time of admission of patients in adult hospitalization units. This was a secondary analysis of the VALENF project databases during two periods (October-December 2020, before the strategy, and October-December 2021, after the strategy). The quantity and quality of nursing assessments performed on patients admitted to adult hospitalization units were evaluated using the Barthel index, Braden index, and Downton scale. The number of assessments completed before the implementation of the new strategy was n = 686 (28.01%), versus n = 1445 (58.73%) in 2021 (p < 0.001). The strategy improved the completion of the evaluations of the three instruments from 63.4% (n = 435) to 71.8% (n = 1038) (p < 0.001). There were significant differences depending on the hospitalization unit and the assessment instrument (p < 0.05). The strategy employed was, therefore, successful. The nursing assessments show a substantial improvement in both quantity and quality, representing a noticeable improvement in nursing practice. This study was not registered.

Development and Validation of a Meta-Instrument for the Assessment of Functional Capacity, the Risk of Falls and Pressure Injuries in Adult Hospitalization Units (VALENF Instrument) (Part II).

The nursing assessment is the first step of the nursing process and fundamental to detecting patients' care needs and at-risk situations. This article presents the psychometric properties of the VALENF Instrument, a recently developed meta-instrument with only seven items that integrates the assessment of functional capacity, risk of pressure injuries and risk of falls with a more parsimonious approach to nursing assessment in adult hospitalization units. A cross-sectional study based on recorded data in a sample of 1352 nursing assessments was conducted. Sociodemographic variables and assessments of the Barthel, Braden and Downton instruments were included at the time of admission through the electronic health history. Thus, the VALENF Instrument obtained high content validity (S-CVI = 0.961), construct validity (RMSEA = 0.072; TLI = 0.968) and internal consistency (Ω = 0.864). However, the inter-observer reliability results were not conclusive, with Kappa values ranging between 0.213 and 0.902 points. The VALENF Instrument has adequate psychometric properties (content validity, construct validity, internal consistency and inter-observer reliability) for assessing the level of functional capacity, risk of pressure injuries and risk of falls. Future studies are necessary to establish its diagnostic accuracy.

Developing and validating an integrated instrument for nursing assessments in adult hospitalization units: Study protocol.

AIMS: To develop and validate an instrument that integrates functional capacity, risk of pressure ulcers and risk of falling with a more parsimonious approach towards nursing assessments in hospitalization units. DESIGN: Cross-sectional validation multicentre study. METHODS: Socio-demographic variables and assessments of Barthel Index, Braden Index and Downton Scale are included via electronic health records. Instrument's development process will include: (i) conceptual assessments; (ii) content validity; (iii) construct validity; (iv) internal consistency and (v) interobserver reliability. The analysis will consider possible differences in medical and surgical hospitalization units, hospitalization type or being a COVID-19 patient. This study was accepted for funding in November 2020 and approved by the Ethics and Research Committee in January 2021. RESULTS: An integrated instrument that lowers the administrative load of nursing assessments and allows at-risk patients to be detected with at least the same validity and reliability as the original instruments is expected to be obtained.

Development and Validation of a Meta-Instrument for Nursing Assessment in Adult Hospitalization Units (VALENF Instrument) (Part I).

Nursing assessment is the basis for performing interventions that match patient needs, but nurses perceive it as an administrative load. This research aims to develop and validate a meta-instrument that integrates the assessment of functional capacity, risk of pressure ulcers and risk of falling with a more parsimonious approach to nursing assessment in adult hospitalization units. Specifically, this manuscript presents the results of the development of this meta-instrument (VALENF instrument). A cross-sectional study based on recorded data was carried out in a sample of 1352 nursing assessments. Socio-demographic variables and assessments of Barthel, Braden and Downton indices at the time of admission were included. The meta-instrument's development process includes: (i) nominal group; (ii) correlation analysis; (iii) multiple linear regressions models; (iv) reliability analysis. A seven-item solution showed a high predictive capacity with Barthel (R2adj = 0.938), Braden (R2adj = 0.926) and Downton (R2adj = 0.921) indices. Likewise, reliability was significant (p < 0.001) for Barthel (ICC = 0.969; τ-b = 0.850), Braden (ICC = 0.943; τ-b = 0.842) and Downton (ICC = 0.905; κ = 7.17) indices. VALENF instrument has an adequate predictive capacity and reliability to assess the level of functional capacity, risk of pressure injuries and risk of falls.