Psychometric evaluation of the post-discharge surgical recovery scale.

UNLABELLED RATIONALE, AIM AND OBJECTIVES: Day surgery patients are discharged after a short period of postoperative surveillance, and reliable and valid instruments for assessment at home are needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a Swedish version of the post-discharge surgical recovery (PSR) scale, an instrument to monitor the patient's recovery after day surgery, in terms of data quality, internal consistency, dimensionality and responsiveness. METHODS Data were collected on postoperative days 1 and 14 and included 525 patients. Data quality and internal consistency were evaluated using descriptive statistics, correlation analyses and Cronbach's alpha. The dimensionality of the scale was determined through an exploratory factor analysis. Responsiveness was evaluated using the standardized response mean and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). The correlation between change score in PSR and change score in self-rated health was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Patients' ability to work and their self-rated health on postoperative day 14 were used as external indicators of change. RESULTS Six items showed floor or ceiling effects. Cronbach's coefficient alpha was 0.90 and the average inter-item correlation coefficient was 0.44 after the deletion of two items. The items were closely related to each other, and a one-factor solution was decided on. A robust ability to detect changes in recovery (standardized response mean = 1.14) was shown. The AUC for the entire scale was 0.60. When initial PSR scores were categorized into three intervals, the ability to detect improved and non-improved patients varied (AUC 0.58-0.81). There was a strong correlation between change scores in PSR and health (0.63). CONCLUSIONS The Swedish version of the PSR scale demonstrates acceptable psychometric properties of data quality, internal consistency, dimensionality and responsiveness. In addition to previous findings, these results strengthen the PSR scale as a potential instrument of recovery at home.

[1]  Jeanne Young,et al.  Day surgery patients' convalescence at home: Does enhanced discharge education make a difference? , 2000 .

[2]  N. Lackey,et al.  Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research , 2003 .

[3]  R A Deyo,et al.  Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. , 1986, Journal of chronic diseases.

[4]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[5]  P D Bezemer,et al.  REPRODUCIBILITY AND RESPONSIVENESS OF EVALUATIVE OUTCOME MEASURES , 2001, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[6]  S. Ferketich,et al.  Focus on psychometrics. Aspects of item analysis. , 1991, Research in nursing & health.

[7]  S. Kleinbeck,et al.  Self-reported at-home postoperative recovery. , 2000, Research in nursing & health.

[8]  Ross D Crosby,et al.  Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. , 2003, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[9]  Recovery from surgery: grappling with an elusive concept. , 2000, Hospital medicine.

[10]  C. Terwee,et al.  On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation , 2003, Quality of Life Research.

[11]  C. Terwee,et al.  Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  Christopher L. Wu,et al.  Postoperative pain and quality of recovery , 2004, Current opinion in anaesthesiology.

[13]  F. Chung,et al.  Factors contributing to a prolonged stay after ambulatory surgery. , 1999, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[14]  C. Terwee,et al.  A taxonomy for responsiveness? , 2002, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  Kathy J. Horvath Postoperative recovery at home after ambulatory gynecologic laparoscopic surgery. , 2003, Journal of perianesthesia nursing : official journal of the American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses.

[16]  Marsha P. Johnson Statistical Methods for Health Care Research , 1996 .

[17]  F. Chung,et al.  Outcomes in day surgery , 2006, Current opinion in anaesthesiology.

[18]  B Kirshner,et al.  A methodological framework for assessing health indices. , 1985, Journal of chronic diseases.

[19]  N. Lackey,et al.  Making Sense of Factor Analysis , 2003 .

[20]  D. Beaton,et al.  Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. , 2000, Spine.

[21]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. , 1998, Physical therapy.

[22]  D. Solosko Preoperative Evaluation and Preparation of the Patient , 1973, International ophthalmology clinics.

[23]  De Lathouwer C,et al.  How much ambulatory surgery in the World in 1996-1997 and trends? , 2000, Ambulatory surgery.

[24]  E. Idvall,et al.  Postoperative recovery: a concept analysis. , 2007, Journal of advanced nursing.

[25]  P. Myles,et al.  Validity and reliability of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-40. , 2000, British journal of anaesthesia.

[26]  Alan Pearson,et al.  Patient subjective experience and satisfaction during the perioperative period in the day surgery setting: a systematic review. , 2006, International journal of nursing practice.

[27]  F. Chung,et al.  Unanticipated admission after ambulatory surgery — a prospective study , 1998, Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie.

[28]  L. Fleisher,et al.  Inpatient hospital admission and death after outpatient surgery in elderly patients: importance of patient and system characteristics and location of care. , 2004, Archives of surgery.

[29]  I. Riphagen,et al.  Systematic review on recovery specific quality-of-life instruments. , 2008, Surgery.

[30]  C. Lathouwer How much ambulatory surgery in the World in 1996-1997 and trends? , 2000 .

[31]  D. Gladman,et al.  Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[32]  Eun-Seok Cha,et al.  Translation of scales in cross-cultural research: issues and techniques. , 2007, Journal of advanced nursing.

[33]  E. Yellen,et al.  Patient satisfaction in ambulatory surgery. , 2001, AORN journal.