Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Checklist”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1999

The 'Mini Nutritional Assessment' (MNA) and the 'Determine Your Nutritional Health' Checklist (NSI Checklist) as predictors of morbidity and mortality in an elderly Danish population.

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the capacity of the 'Determine Your Nutritional Health' Checklist (NSI Checklist) and the 'Mini Nutritional Assessment' (MNA) methods to predict nutrition-related health problems. Data were from the Danish part of the 'Survey in Europe of Nutrition in the Elderly, a Concerted Action' (SENECA) baseline survey from 1988, and the follow-up study from 1993. Based on the baseline survey thirty-nine (19.3%) of the subjects were classified at high nutritional risk, 103 (51%) were considered at moderate nutritional risk and sixty (29.7%) were within the 'good' range according to the criteria in the NSI Checklist. With the MNA, 171 subjects were classified according to their nutritional risk into a well-nourished group, comprising 78.4%, and a group who were at risk of undernutrition, comprising 21.6% at baseline. A total of 115 subjects participated in the follow-up study. The mortality rate and the prevalence of various morbidity indicators were compared between the different risk groups. The analysis showed that subjects with a high MNA score (> or = 24) had significantly lower mortality (rate ratio estimate: 0.35; 95% Cl 0.18, 0.66) compared with subjects with a low MNA score (< or = 23.5). In contrast, the NSI Checklist score was not a significant predictor of mortality (rate ratio estimate: 1.45; 95% Cl 0.78, 2.71). The sixteen Danes judged to be at high nutritional risk by the NSI Checklist in 1988, had more acute diseases (P < 0.001) than the rest of the participants, between 1988 and 1993. No significant differences were found in the participation rates, hospitalization rates, physician visits, need of help or weight loss between the groups. The thirteen Danes judged to be at risk of undernutrition in 1988 by the MNA, had a lower participation rate (P < 0.01) and higher occurrence of acute disease (P < 0.05), need of help (P < 0.05), and weight loss (P < 0.001) than the well-nourished group, between 1988 and 1993. No significant differences were found in hospitalization rates and physician visits between the two groups. In conclusion, the results indicate that modified versions of the NSI Checklist and the MNA are capable of identifying a group of 70-75-year-old subjects with increased risk of certain nutrition-related health problems. Further, an MNA score < or = 23.5 predicts mortality in a Danish population.

Aged↗
PubMed1993

Routine psychiatric examinations guided by ICD-10 diagnostic checklists (International Diagnostic Checklists).

A systematic assessment of psychiatric diagnoses according to the new classification system ICD-10 can be guided and enhanced by the International Diagnostic Checklists (IDCL). This instrument was developed and evaluated primarily for use in routine clinical care. It consists of 30 separate lists in pocket form, each assigned to a specific disorder and allowing immediate and operationalized diagnostic decisions (without the need of computer assistance). Personality disorders are covered by a separate 12-page booklet (IDCL-P). Examples of the checklists are given together with possible areas of application. First studies have indicated good clinical practicability and satisfactory to excellent diagnostic reliability.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Experiences with a checklist for DSM-III-R in the Russian Federation and Belarus. A study about the interrater reliability and the concurrent validity of the Munich Diagnostic Checklist for DSM-III-R.

The interrater reliability of the Munich Diagnostic Checklist (MDCL) was assessed in a small clinical sample and two population samples in the Russian Federation and Belarus. A team of Russian and Belarussian psychiatrists made DSM-III-R diagnoses, using the MDCL as the basis for a standardized interview. The interrater reliability was found to be satisfactory (kappa = 0.86 for case vs non-case distinction). In the population samples, the interviewing psychiatrist, in addition to making a DSM-III-R diagnosis, classified each respondent on a checklist of 11 clinical syndromes familiar to Russian psychiatry and made a severity rating. The overall concurrent validity indices based on the comparison of these diagnostic ratings were fairly high (kappa 0.48-0.82), suggesting considerable agreement between the DSM-III-R and traditional Russian diagnostic concepts.

Humans↗
PubMed1996

Psychometric properties of a standardized-patient checklist and rating-scale form used to assess interpersonal and communication skills.

The results show that the SP checklist scores and the SP ratings of interpersonal and communication skills have comparable psychometric properties. The reliabilities of the five-item rating form (.76) and the single global rating of patient satisfaction (.70) were slightly higher than the reliability of the 17-item checklist (.65); this finding is of particular significance, given the greater length of the checklist. Also, the checklist scores and ratings appear to be measuring the same underlying dimension, with correlations of the checklist with the five ratings and with the single global rating being .82 and .81, respectively. Van der Vleuten and associates, in two excellent articles, noted a recent shift away from the use of subjective measures of clinical competence, such as rating scales, toward the use of presumably more objective measures, such as SP checklists. Their concern was that these objective measures may focus on somewhat trivial and easily measured aspects of the clinical encounter, and that more subtle but critical factors in clinical performance may be overlooked or ignored. They referred to such measurement as "objectified" rather than objective. The shift is based on the presumption that objective or objectified measurement is superior to subjective measurement, such as ratings, with respect to psychometric properties such as reliability. On the basis of a survey of several studies, though, the authors concluded that "objectified methods do not inherently provide more reliable scores" and "may even provide unwanted outcomes, such as negative effects on study behavior and triviality of the content being measured." The results of the present study support this conclusion, showing somewhat higher reliabilities for subjective ratings than for the objective (or perhaps objectified) checklist. Also, the high uncorrected correlations suggest that the more reliable ratings are measuring the same underlying dimension as are the checklist scores. The present study also illustrates the application of a recently proposed method for constructing a valid SP checklist, which would consist of items that best reflect global ratings of performance. In this study, the ratings were provided by the SPs themselves, but ratings could be obtained from faculty-physician experts who observe student performance on the SP case. Thus, performance on individual checklist items would be correlated with expert ratings, to identify the items that best predict the ratings. The checklist, then, would be constructed of just those items that best predict the ratings, and the checklist could be used for future testing without the need for further faculty ratings (yet the checklist scores would reflect the faculty ratings). With this approach, it would seem possible to construct checklists for history-taking and physical-examination skills, as well as for interpersonal and communication skills. Thus, the faculty ratings would provide a basis for case development and refinement, including scoring and standard setting, and scores on the checklist would serve as a proxy for the gold-standard faculty ratings. The study suggests that SP ratings may be more efficient and more reliable than SP checklists for assessing interpersonal and communication skills. The study also demonstrates that global ratings by SPs (or by expert physician observers) can provide a basis for SP-test construction.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2000

Developing case-specific checklists for standardized-patient-based assessments in internal medicine: A review of the literature.

PURPOSE: To review the literature on the methods used in writing case-specific checklists for studies of internal medicine physicians' performances that were assessed by standardized patients. METHOD: The authors searched Medline, Embase, Psychlit, and ERIC for articles in English published between 1966 and February 1998. The following search string was used: "[(standardi(*) or simulat(*) or programm(*)) near (patient(*) or client(*) or consultati(*))] and internal medicine." The authors then searched the reference lists of papers retrieved from the database searches, as well as those from seven proceedings of the International Ottawa Conference on Medical Education and Assessment. RESULTS: The procedure yielded 29 relevant articles: database searches yielded 14 published reports dealing with case-specific checklists, 11 articles were culled from the reference lists of these papers, and the Ottawa Conference proceedings yielded four articles. Only 12 articles reported specifically on the development of checklists. In general, there were three sources used for developing checklists: panels of experts, the investigators themselves, and responses from expert physicians to written protocols. No article indicated that researchers had relied exclusively on data from the literature to compose their checklists. Only three articles indicated that literature sources had informed their checklist development. All articles except one relied on explicit criteria for the inclusion of items on the checklists. In 21 of the 29 articles, the checklists had been scored by SPs, but the scoring of specific items on the checklists varied according to the purpose of the SP-physician encounter. Only four of the articles made the checklists available or indicated that the checklists could be obtained from the authors. CONCLUSION: The development of case-specific checklists for SP examinations of physicians' performance has received little attention. To judge the validity of studies of physicians' performances that use SPs, the development processes for the checklists need to be more fully described to enable readers to evaluate the validity and reliability of the studies.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed1997

Applying epidemiological principles to ergonomics: a checklist for incorporating sound design and interpretation of studies.

The primary purpose of this paper is to provide a checklist of scientific requirements necessary for the design of sound ergonomics studies. Ergonomics researchers will be able to use the checklist when designing a study and preparing it for publication. Practitioners can use the checklist to critically appraise study results, thereby having greater confidence when applying ergonomic recommendations to the workplace. A secondary purpose of the paper is to pilot the checklist on a sample of papers in the ergonomics literature and to assess its reliability. While there are checklists to assess the epidemiological rigour of studies, none have been adapted to address methodological issues in ergonomics. Two epidemiologists independently searched five ergonomics journals (Applied Ergonomics, Ergonomics, Human Factors, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction and Journal of Human Ergology) for research studies on VDT use and visual function published between 1990 and 1995. Twenty-one articles were reviewed. Each paper was scored according to the checklist. Overall, the reviewers found that the articles did not consistently fulfill some of the checklist criteria. An insufficient sample size was the most serious omission. Inter-rater reliability of the checklist was excellent for 11 of 14 items on the checklist (Kappa > 0.74), good for two items (Kappa between 0.40 and 0.74) and poor for one item. As ergonomics is gaining acceptance as an integral part of occupational health and safety, individuals in this field must be cognizant of the fact that study results are being applied directly to workplace procedures and design. It is incumbent upon ergonomists to base their work on a solid research foundation. The checklist can be used as a tool to improve study designs and so ultimately has implications for improving the fit between the worker and the work environment.

Computer Terminals↗
PubMed1997

The use of a systemic therapy checklist improves the quality of data acquisition and recording in multicentre trials. A study of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group.

The aim of this study was to verify whether the introduction of a systemic therapy checklist in the performance of multinational multicentre studies improves the quality of data acquisition and recording. We retrospectively analysed the results obtained through the use of this checklist in a study of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group. During the clinical trial, data were recorded in the hospital record with optional use of a predesigned EORTC Systemic Therapy Checklist. After completion of the study, 11 centres were monitored for the use of this checklist. Monitors were highly experienced medical oncologists. Items checked included all aspects of patient eligibility, drug administration, biochemical and haematological values, variables related to toxicities of treatment and response parameters. Data of 183 cycles given to 51 patients were checked. A total of 8983 items were checked. 91% of the data was reported correctly, 1% was missing and 6% was reported on the case record from (CRF) but could not be retrieved in the hospital record file. Compared with data obtained before the introduction of the checklist (68% correct, 4% incorrect, 0.1% missing and 28% on CRF but not in hospital files), these results show marked improvement generally. In centres where no Systemic Therapy Checklist was used, 85.9% of data were correct 2.8% incorrect, 0.7% missing and 10.6% only on CRF, which compares unfavourably with those where the Systemic Checklist was completely used (97.7% correct, 0.7% incorrect, 1% missing, 0.6% only on CRF). In addition the time required for data checking largely decreased by the use of the checklist-without this, a median of 3.5 cycles could be checked per hour, whilst if the checklist was used, this number increased to 6.5 cycles per hour. The use of a Systemic Therapy Checklist as an integral part of the hospital file for data recording in multicentre multinational trials is highly recommended and leads to a major improvement in data quality.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗
PubMed2002

Minimizing side-effects: the clinical impact of nurse-administered 'side-effect' checklists.

BACKGROUND: For those with chronic illness, the adverse effects of medication are important causes of morbidity and distress which may not always receive due attention. Guidelines and checklists may be one strategy to focus professionals' attention on long-term problems. Therefore, client-centred 'side-effect' evaluation checklists were developed to be administered and actioned by nurses. AIM: The purpose of this study was to explore the clinical impact of these checklists on long-term users of antipsychotic medication. METHODS: This study was undertaken with clients with enduring mental illness, in Community Mental Health Teams. In the first phase, 40 nurse-client interactions were observed. Following introduction of the evaluation checklists, 20 nurse-client interactions were observed with the checklists and 20 nurse-client interactions were observed for comparison. In addition, the views of professionals, service users and user groups on the value of the checklists were sought. FINDINGS: Amongst the 20 clients in the intervention group, the checklists highlighted several problems, two of which were urgent. In the intervention group, the mean number of problems actioned per client increased from 0.35 (range=0-4) with no checklists to 3 (range=0-6) with the checklists. The majority (51 of 59) of actions taken to alleviate adverse effects of medication concerned physical health problems. Nurses offered appropriate advice or encouraged clients to contact the relevant agencies. No such changes were observed in the comparator group. There were no differences between groups in the number of referrals to prescribers. IMPLICATIONS: The usefulness of the evaluation checklists for detecting unattended problems, in conjunction with the responses of service users, suggests that it may be clinically effective to establish procedures to systematically monitor people with serious mental illness for adverse drug reactions (ADRs). However, larger studies are needed to confirm this.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

A comparison of global ratings and checklist scores from an undergraduate assessment using an anesthesia simulator.

PURPOSE: To determine the correlation between global ratings and criterion-based checklist scores, and inter-rater reliability of global ratings and criterion-based checklist scores, in a performance assessment using an anesthesia simulator. METHOD: All final-year medical students at the University of Toronto were invited to work through a 15-minute faculty-facilitated scenario using an anesthesia simulator. Students' performances were videotaped and analyzed by two faculty using a 25-point criterion-based checklist and a five-point global rating of competency (1 = clear failure, 5 = superior performance). Correlations between global ratings and checklist scores, as well as specific performance competencies (knowledge, technical skills, and judgment), were determined. Checklist and global scores were converted to percentages; means of the two marks were compared. Mean reliability of a single rater for both checklist and global ratings was determined. RESULTS: The correlation between checklist and global ratings was.74. Mean ratings of both checklist and global scores were low (58.67, SD = 14.96, and 57.08, SD = 24.27, respectively); these differences were not statistically significant. For a single rater, the mean reliability score across rater pairs for checklist scores was.77 (range.58-.93). Mean reliability score across rater pairs for global ratings was.62 (.40-.77). Global ratings correlated more highly with technical skills and judgment (r =.51 and r =.53, respectively) than with knowledge. (r =.24) CONCLUSION: Inter-rater reliability was higher for checklist scores than for global ratings; however, global ratings demonstrated acceptable inter-rater reliability and may be useful for competency assessment in performance assessments using simulators.

Anesthesia↗
PubMed1996

An assessment of the effectiveness of the revised FDA checklist.

In 1978, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), developed a generic anesthesia equipment preuse checklist. The checklist was first released by the FDA in August 1986 and endorsed by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists on October 18, 1986. The FDA checklist was revised in 1992 to improve the abilities of anesthesia providers to detect machine faults. In the present study, the investigators attempted to determine the effectiveness of the revised FDA checklist in detection of anesthesia machine faults as compared to providers' usual methods. Whereas no published study of preanesthesia safety inspection had been performed since the revision of the FDA checklist, the authors compared the detection abilities of anesthesia providers before and after inclusion of the revised FDA checklist. Twenty-two anesthesia providers were tested to compare the number of prearranged anesthesia machine faults that could be detected with (1) their usual checkout methods, and (2) with the revised FDA checklist. Data describing the subjects' fault detection abilities were analyzed using the t test for paired observation (P value < 0.05 considered significant). Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference (P = 0.479) when subjects used the FDA checklist and when they used their usual method. Use of the FDA machine checklist was no more effective than the provider's usual method in discovering machine faults. When using their normal method, 54.5% of providers did not discover more than 50% of programmed faults. Approximately 40.9% of providers who used the revised FDA checklist did not discover over 50% of programmed faults.

Anesthesiology↗
PubMed2000

New contraceptive eligibility checklists for provision of combined oral contraceptives and depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate in community-based programmes.

Community-based services (CBS) have long used checklists to determine eligibility for contraceptive method use, in particular for combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and the 3-month injectable contraceptive depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA). As safety information changes, however, checklists can quickly become outdated. Inconsistent checklists and eligibility criteria often cause uneven access to contraceptives. In 1996, WHO produced updated eligibility criteria for the use of all contraceptive methods. Based on these criteria, new checklists for COCs and DMPA were developed. This article describes the new checklists and their development. Several rounds of expert review produced checklists that were correct, comprehensible and consistent with the eligibility requirements. Nevertheless, field-testing of the checklists revealed that approximately half (48%) of the respondents felt that one or more questions still needed greater comprehensibility. These findings indicated the need for a checklist guide. In March 2000, WHO convened a meeting of experts to review the medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. The article reflects also the resulting updated checklist.

Community Health Services↗
PubMed1991

A checklist to assess patient education in physical therapy practice: development and reliability.

Patient education in physical therapy is gaining attention because it can contribute to patient compliance and prevention. This article describes the development of an assessment tool for investigating patient education in physical therapy. A checklist of 65 educational activity items was constructed. The investigators tested the applicability of the checklist using 227 audiotaped treatment sessions involving patients from various private practices in the Netherlands. The 227 audiotaped sessions covered the entire period of treatment for 25 patients, each of whom participated in an average of 9 treatment sessions. The results showed that all except 1 of the 65 educational activities occurred in the 227 treatment sessions and that no educational activities occurred that could not be rated in the checklist. These findings may indicate that the checklist covers the entire range of educational activities currently applied by physical therapists. The reliability of the checklist was tested using a subsample of the treatments. The average scores for interrater and intrarater reliability, as determined by the use of the Cramer's V coefficient of association for ordinal data, were .76 and .81, respectively. The checklist can be used to investigate the current educational activities in physical therapy practice. In addition, the checklist can be used in peer review and can contribute to the development of standards for the quality of care. [Sluijs EM. A checklist to assess patient education in physical therapy practice: development and reliability.

Educational Measurement↗
PubMed1995

Comparing checklists and databases with physicians' ratings as measures of students' history and physical-examination skills.

PURPOSE: To compare two methods of rating students' performances on history and physical examination: (1) by using checklists completed by standardized patients (SPs) and databases completed by students, and (2) by using ratings of students by three physicians for each SP-student encounter. METHOD: Four cases were chosen for the study, and 30 students were examined per case. The students were all in their fourth year at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine in the spring of 1991. Two of the cases had both checklists and databases, and the remaining two had databases only. Each SP-student encounter was videotaped and was viewed independently by three physicians unfamiliar with the contents of the checklists and databases. The physicians' pooled ratings were then compared with the checklist and database scores. Uncorrected and corrected correlations were obtained, with the generalizability coefficient used as the index of reliability. RESULTS: Interrater generalizability of physicians' ratings was very good, ranging from .65 to .93 for overall ratings. Generalizability of physicians' ratings pooled across the four cases was .85. Checklist scores tended to correlate higher with physicians' ratings than did database scores: across the cases, correlation coefficients between physicians' ratings and checklist scores and database scores were .65 and .39, respectively. CONCLUSION: The checklist scores correlated strongly with the physicians' ratings of history and physical-examination skills, providing some evidence of validity for their use. The checklist scores correlated much better with the physicians' ratings than did the database scores. Possible explanations for this finding are discussed.

Clinical Clerkship↗
PubMed1987

Effect of medical records' checklists on implementation of periodic health measures.

Recent re-evaluation of preventive health care has resulted in more limited and directed guidelines; nonetheless, physician compliance has remained poor. This study assessed whether an inexpensive reminder system of preventive care checklists would improve physician implementation of periodic health measures. Residents in internal medicine were randomly placed into two groups: one received a copy of the appropriate checklist with each patient's medical record; the other did not. After one year, 200 randomly selected records were audited to determine the proportion of recommendations implemented for each patient. Residents who received checklists performed appropriate preventive health measures at a significantly higher rate than those who did not (0.56 +/- 0.26 versus 0.39 +/- 0.22, p less than 0.002). The actual use of the checklist to record the results was associated with an even higher rate of compliance compared with instances in which the checklists were provided but not used and instances in which checklists were not received (0.70 +/- 0.21 versus 0.44 +/- 0.24 and 0.39 +/- 0.22, respectively, p less than 0.002). These data suggest that a physician's use of simple checklists can provide an inexpensive and effective means of improving implementation of periodic health maintenance.

California↗
PubMed1990

Measuring cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance: a comparison of the Heartsaver checklist to manikin strip.

Both checklists and recording manikin strips (strips) are used for evaluation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performance. To examine their relationship, we simultaneously evaluated single rescuer CPR of 255 subjects using both checklists and strips. For Group 1 (N = 192; general public tested in Heartsaver course) we compared the total number of initial ventilations and compressions judged to be correct by checklists with those judged to be correct by strips. For Group II (N = 63; physicians, nurses, general public tested in retention studies) we compared each subjects checklist with their own strip for evaluation of correct ventilations and compressions. In Group I, CPR was judged to be correct two to four times more frequently by checklists than by strips. In Group II, all correlations were poor. The most common disagreements were with performances evaluated as correct by checklist but not by strip. Therefore, the current checklist may be a poor instrument for measuring CPR. More accurate evaluation should improve learning and therefore improve outcome following cardiac arrest.

Educational Measurement↗
PubMed1997

[Evaluation of a checklist for anesthetic equipment before use].

OBJECTIVE: To describe and to assess the use of a checklist for anaesthetic equipment, the effects on the quality of care, as well as the difficulty to obtain a complete and permanent compliance of anaesthesia staff to the use of the checklist, in comparison with the practice patterns in other countries and of the recommendations by the French society of anaesthesia and intensive care for the anaesthetic machine checking. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective quality assurance study with two subsequent phases. METHODS: Both a detailed and a simplified checklist were initially tested over a 57-day-period to evaluate the incidence and severity of recognized abnormalities and to assess the compliance of the staff with this new procedure. Four months later, the same evaluation was performed again. The detailed checklist was used before the first anaesthetic in the morning and called "Theater opening form". The simplified list was used before the subsequent anaesthetics and called "Checking before induction form". RESULTS: During phase I, the detailed and simplified forms of the checklist were only used in 54% and 32% of cases respectively. They were more often completed in scheduled (93%) than in emergency cases (31%). The detailed checklist detected 5/165 potentially severe abnormalities in the breathing system that could be amended before use. After formal discussion with all members of the department, the simplified checklist was abandoned, as it did not detect any significant abnormality and was considered too time-consuming. During the phase II of the study, as the staff checked the anaesthetic machine more often in emergency cases (52%), the overall compliance increased (73%) but remained insufficient. However, no critical incident could be detected during the second evaluation period. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrated the safety benefits associated with the procedure of checking anaesthetic equipment, but also pointed out the difficulty to obtain a full participation of the staff in quality-assurance programmes.

Anesthesiology↗
PubMed2000

Preliminary validation of an observational pain checklist for persons with cognitive impairments and inability to communicate verbally.

To obtain a preliminary validation of the Non-Communicating Children's Pain Checklist for individuals with an inability to communicate verbally, 32 caregivers of individuals with cognitive impairments aged 3 to 44 years retrospectively completed the Non-Communicating Children's Pain Checklist and rated item usefulness (0 to 10). In the second part of the study 33 caregivers completed the Checklist after two painful (e.g. burns, falls, surgery), one distressful (e.g. unwanted grooming, feared animal/noise), and one calm event (e.g. watching television). Checklist scores did not correlate with the age, sex, or physical limitations of individuals with an inability to communicate verbally. In the first part of the study Cronbach's alpha was 0.66; all mean usefulness ratings exceeded 5 out of 10. In the second part of the study after four items were removed, Cronbach's alpha was 0.79. Checklist scores during pain correlated with numerical ratings of pain intensity did not differ between the two pain events, and differed significantly from calm scores. Differences in Checklist scores during pain and distress were found for two subscales. The Checklist exhibits internal consistency, and preliminary evidence suggests it can detect pain and is reliable over time.

Adolescent↗