Table 2 Range of instruments for measuring clients’ experiences - assessment criteria 2020-2022
Criterion | Aim | Year of inclusion |
|---|---|---|
1. The instrument yields information at the level of the individual client | Giving voice to individual clients | 2012 |
2. The instrument provides insight into the experiences and concrete suggestions for improvement of individual clients, and is specifically tailored to people with PIMD; explained under (d): a) The person himself is speaking, as opposed to a proxy; b) The instrument does not only record the current situation, but also explicitly affords the possibility to make suggestions for improvement in the individual client’s life; c) In such a way that the person’s own frame of reference is recognisable; d) In order to collect data on people with PIMD, the instrument needs to be administered by at least two people, who are involved in the client’s care from different perspectives (e.g. a relative and a member of the support staff). | Ensuring that suggestions for improvement can be dealt with at an individual level | 2012 (a – c); 2017 (d); to avoid misinterpretation of the (non-verbal) communication of clients with PIMD, which can possibly lead to the inadequate assessment of clients’ experiences of care and undesirable alterations being made to care practices. |
3. Use of the instrument is embedded in the care plan cycle (i.e., methodical discussion of the individual care plan) | Aligning the suggestions for improvement with the work processes of the care organisation, and ensuring that actions are carried out | 2012 |
4. Data can be aggregated (anonymously) to different levels (team, location, organisation) | Enabling benchmarking at the team level and over time | 2012 |
5. It is explicitly stated under which circumstances an instrument is useful, and under which conditions it will be fully appreciated | Ensuring that the necessary contextual circumstances to apply the instrument are met, so that the impact of the instrument is most effective | 2016; based on conversations with ID care practice |
6. Instrument developer(s) can guarantee continuity in availability and the (further) development of the instrument | Ensuring long-term availability | 2016; based on conversations with ID care practitioners |
7. The instrument yields reliable assessments | Ensuring the methodological soundness of the instrument | 2012 |
8. The instrument is valid (face validity, construct validity, criterion validity) | Ensuring the methodological soundness of the instrument | 2012 |