Pilot Validation Study: Canadian Global Rating Scale for Colonoscopy Services
Table 2
Face validity.
(a)
GRS-C item
Interpretation of “clinical quality” item: what aspects of colonoscopy did subjects feel were being addressed? N = 5
Item intended by rating scale designers
1
Patient satisfaction (3) Informed consent (2)
Consent process
2
Safety and accountability (3) Quality control (2)
Safety
3
Comfort (4), sedation (1)
Comfort
4
Auditable outcomes (1) Quality indicators of care (3)
Quality of the procedure
5
Adherence to guidelines (4) Triage priorities (1)
Appropriateness
6
If/how reports are submitted to referrer, documentation of procedure, reports (5)
Communicating results to referrer
One participant did not respond to the question regarding domain 4.
(b)
GRS-C item
Interpretation of “quality of patient experience” item: what aspects of colonoscopy did subjects feel were being addressed?
Domain intended by rating scale designers
7
Access to services (1) Equality of access as it relates to patient’s communication (1) Communication with the patient (3)
Equality of access
8
Triage process and wait times (2) Triage process (1) Wait times (2)
Timeliness
9
Scheduling of appointments (3) Appointment scheduling process (2)
Booking and choice
10
Recovery (1) Patient dignity (1) Privacy of patients (1) Maintaining patient’s privacy and dignity (1) Patient’s privacy and care before and after an endoscopy (1)
Privacy and dignity
11
Results to patients (1) Continuity of care after endoscopy (1) Follow-up and safety of patient (1) Discharge/postprocedure information (1) How to book a follow-up with a physician after a procedure (1)
Aftercare
12
Patients and staff: better communication of complaints and feedback (3) Maintaining quality of care (1) Actions taken when it comes to feedback, surveys, comments or complaints (1)
