Skip to main content

Table 2 Perceptions of Self-Confidence in FPDIP

From: Family presence during invasive procedures: a pilot study to test a tool

Item number (original order)/Loads (%)

F1

44.66

F2

10.99

F3

7.24

27

Could inform family members present during the development of invasive techniques

 

0.717

 

28

I could administer medication during a IPs witnessed by relatives

 

0.734

 

31

I could communicate effectively with the rest of the healthcare team during an invasive process witnessed by relatives

 

0.765

 

32

Could maintain the patient’s dignity during an IP witnessed by relatives

 

0.735

 

33

It could identify family members who have appropriate behaviors during IP

0.569

  

34

You may be able to prepare family members to access the room where your loved one’s IP is being performed.

0.764

  

35

You may be able to get the physicians/nurses caring for you to support family presence during your loved one’s IP.

0.696

  

36

You could accompany family members who are witnessing their loved one’s IP technique.

0.823

  

37

You could inform the healthcare team that the IP is being witnessed by relatives.

0.747

  

38

May provide comfort measures to family members present during your loved one’s IPs

0.785

  

39

You may be able to identify the spiritual and emotional needs of family members present during your loved one’s IPs.

0.773

  

40

May encourage family members to talk with their loved one during IPs

0.731

  

41

You may delegate duties to other nurses/physicians to support family members present during your loved one’s IPs

0.574

  

42

You could inform family members after performing invasive procedural techniques:

  

0.813

43

I could coordinate bereavement follow-up for family members after an IP if needed.

  

0.870

44

You would like your family members to be present while you are undergoing an IP

 

0.538

 
  1. Extraction method: principal component analysis
  2. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization a
  3. The rotation has converged in 6 iterations
  4. KMO and Bartlett test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.874
  5. Bartlett’s sphericity test Approx: Chi-square 1064.582; gl 120; Sig 0.000