4.1 Article

Criterion validity of a home health aide's algorithm for recommending bathroom equipment

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/000841740907600s10

Keywords

Community health services; Needs assessment; Home health aides; Hygiene; Criterion validity; Assistive devices

Categories

Funding

  1. Centre de sante et des services sociaux Memphremagog
  2. Fonds de recherche en sante du Quebec
  3. Quebec Network for Research on Aging
  4. Educational Network for Research on Health and Aging
  5. Research Center on Aging
  6. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences of the Universite de Sherbrooke
  7. University Women's Scholarship Foundation-Sherbooke District
  8. Ordre des ergotherapeutes du Quebec

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Occupational therapists are experts at adapting bathroom environments. However, to increase access to services, the algorithm Prealables aux soins d'hygiene (French for Prerequisites for bathing care) has been developed to be used by trained home health aides to recommend bathroom equipment. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to assess the criterion validity of the algorithm by measuring the level of agreement between an occupational therapist's recommendations (gold standard) and those made by four home health aides using the algorithm. Methods. Community-living adults with bathing difficulties (n = 96) were visited by both types of evaluators. Findings. Home health aides correctly identified clinical situations in which they should feel confident about their ability (sensitivity: 96%, specificity: 69%) and, apart from type of bathing seat (k(w) = 0.63 [0.52; 0.75]), agreement between recommendations varied from substantial to almost perfect (Delta >= 0.72). Implications. Results increase confidence in the algorithm, but other studies are needed to ensure population safety and fulfil the occupational therapist's obligations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available