Skip to main content

Table 6 Domains, items and internal consistency of the second factor analysis (27 items)

From: Quality of care in the intensive care unit from the perspective of patient’s relatives: development and psychometric evaluation of the consumer quality index ‘R-ICU’

   Factor loading ITC α if item deleted
Item No. Factor 1 Communication (α = .80; n = 390)
7 Prepared to first confrontation with patient .45 .46 .79
9 Information given by doctors was understandable .48 .51 .78
10 Information given by nurses was understandable .61 .55 .78
11 Healthcare professionals did not give conflicting information .42 .36 .80
28 Healthcare professionals take relatives seriously .67 .59 .78
29 Healthcare workers have sufficient time .69 .65 .77
30 Doctors listen carefully to relatives .47 .52 .78
31 Nurses listen carefully to relatives .62 .57 .78
32 Visiting hours connect to need relatives .28 .29 .80
33 Not affected by changes in medical team .48 .37 .79
34 Not affected by presence of sound of equipment .51 .25 .80
36 Not affected by noisiness ICU-staff .58 .36 .80
37 Not affected by visit of other patients .28 .10 .81
38 Adequate opportunity for privacy on ICU .41 .37 .80
Item No. Factor 2 Participation (α = .84; n = 388)
8 Written information during hospital stay .35 .32 .84
14 Informed about professionals involved by healthcare .45 .49 .83
16 Informed about working method on IC .54 .59 .82
18 Information on writing in a diary .44 .32 .84
20 Information on contributions to care .64 .62 .82
21 Ability to contribute to care .60 .53 .82
22 Opportunity to be present at doctor’s visit .54 .51 .83
23 Involved in decision-making medical treatment .50 .48 .83
24 Informed about parking and parking fees .37 .28 .84
25 Informed about meal services .50 .44 .831
35 Healthcare professionals explained why noise .59 .52 .83
42 Attention to ‘how it is’ with relatives .73 .69 .82
43 Attention to what relatives needed .71 .69 .81
\