Key result
Experts reach consensus on an ICF-based scoring methodology across 43 categories for older HF patients.
Why the study?
With older patients with HF increasing in Japan, there was an urgent need to develop and validate a comprehensive assessment scoring methodology based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).
Cross-Sectional (n=26)
An ICF-based scoring method for older people with heart failure was developed and deemed appropriate by a multidisciplinary expert panel in Japan.
Supports standardized ICF-based assessment in older HF patients; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
OBJECTIVE: The number of older patients with heart failure (HF) is increasing in Japan and has become a social problem. There is an urgent need to develop a comprehensive assessment methodology based on the common language of healthcare; the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The purpose of this study was to develop and confirm the appropriateness of a scoring methodology for 43 ICF categories in older people with HF. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. We applied the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with a modified Delphi method. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We included a panel of 26 multidisciplinary experts on HF care consisting of home physicians, cardiovascular physicians, care managers, nurses, physical therapists, a pharmacist, occupational therapist, nutritionist and a social worker. MEASURES: We conducted a literature review of ICF linking rules and developed a questionnaire on scoring methods linked to ICF categories in older people with HF. In the Delphi rounds, we sent the expert panel a questionnaire consisting of three questions for each of the 43 ICF categories. The expert panel responded to the questionnaire items on a 1 (very inappropriate) - 9 (very appropriate) Likert scale and repeated rounds until a consensus of 'Appropriate' and 'Agreement' was reached on all items. RESULTS: A total of 21 panel members responded to all the Delphi rounds. In the first Delphi round, six question items in four ICF categories did not reach a consensus of 'Agreement', but the result of our modifications based on panel members' suggestions reached to a consensus of 'Appropriate' and 'Agreement' on all questions in the second Delphi round. CONCLUSION: The ICF-based scoring method for older people with HF developed in this study was found to be appropriate. Future work is needed to clarify whether comprehensive assessment and information sharing based on ICF contributes to preventing readmissions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shiota et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in Heart failure (n=26). Delphi survey for ICF-based scoring method was evaluated on Consensus of 'Appropriate' and 'Agreement' on 43 ICF categories. A modified Delphi survey of 21 multidisciplinary experts successfully reached consensus on the appropriateness of an ICF-based scoring methodology for 43 categories in older patients with heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: