Rasch analysis of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) in burn scars

The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) is a questionnaire that was developed to assess scar quality. It consists of two separate six-item scales (Observer Scale and Patient Scale), both of which are scored on a 10-point rating scale. After many years of experience with this scale in burn scar assessment, it is appropriate to examine its psychometric properties using Rasch analysis. Cross-sectional data collection from seven clinical trials resulted in a data set of 1,629 observer scores and 1,427 patient scores of burn scars. We examined the person-item map, item fit statistics, reliability, response category ordering, and dimensionality of the POSAS. The POSAS showed an adequate fit to the Rasch model, except for the item surface area. Person reliability of the Observer Scale and Patient Scale was 0.82 and 0.77, respectively. Dimensionality analysis revealed that the unexplained variance by the first contrast of both scales was 1.7 units. Spearman correlation between the Observer Scale Rasch measure and the overall opinion of the clinician was 0.75. The Rasch model demonstrated that the POSAS is a reliable and valid scale that measures the single-construct scar qualit

Measuring empathy in pediatrics: validation of the Visual CARE measure

Background: Empathy is a key element of “Patient and Family Centered Care”, a clinical approach recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. However, there is a lack of validated tools to evaluate paediatrician empathy. This study aimed to validate the Visual CARE Measure, a patient rated questionnaire measuring physician empathy, in the setting of a Pediatric Emergency Department (ED). Methods: The empathy of physicians working in the Pediatric ED of the University Hospital of Udine, Italy, was assessed using an Italian translation of the Visual Care Measure. This test has three versions suited to different age groups: the 5Q questionnaire was administered to children aged 7–11, the 10Q version to those older than 11, and the 10Q–Parent questionnaire to parents of children younger than 7. The internal reliability, homogeneity and construct validity of the 5Q and 10Q/10Q–Parent versions of the Visual Care Measure, were separately assessed. The influence of family background on the rating of physician empathy and satisfaction with the clinical encounter was also evaluated. Results: Seven physicians and 416 children and their parents were included in the study. Internal consistency measured by Cronbach’s alpha was 0.95 for the 10Q/10Q–Parent versions and 0.88 for the 5Q version. The item-total correlation was > 0.75 for each item. An exploratory factor analysis showed that all the items load onto the first factor. Physicians’ empathy scores correlated with patients’ satisfaction for both the 10Q and 10Q–Parent questionnaires (Spearman’s rho = 0.7189; p < 0.001) and for the 5Q questionnaire (Spearman’s rho = 0.5968; p < 0,001). Trust in the consulting physician was lower among immigrant parents (OR 0.43. 95% CI 0.20–0.93). Conclusions: The Visual Care Measure is a reliable second-person test of physician empathy in the setting of a Pediatric Emergency Room. More studies are needed to evaluate the reliability of this instrument in other pediatric settings distinct from the Emergency Room and to further evaluate its utility in measuring the impact of communication and empathy training programmes for healthcare professionals working in pediatrics

Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the patient and observer scar assessment scale

Background: Although scar evaluation tools are necessary for an evidence-based approach to scar management, there is as yet no generally accepted tool. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale was developed recently and found to be a useful subjective evaluation tool for burn scars. The authors tested the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale on linear scars, the largest category of surgical scars. Methods: One hundred linear surgical scars were assessed by three independent observers using the observer scale to evaluate vascularity, pigmentation, thickness, relief, pliability, and surface area. The patients evaluated their scars simultaneously and 2 weeks later using the patient scale for the following parameters: pain, itching, color, stiffness, thickness, and relief. Results: The internal consistency of the observer and patient scales was good (Cronbach's α = 0.86 and 0.90, respectively). The reliability of the observer scale was good for the total score (r = 0.96, p 0.70, p < 0.001). The patient's intraobserver reliability was good for the total score (r = 0.94, p < 0.001) and separate items (r ≥ 0.89, p < 0.001). The coefficient of variation of the total score was 10.4 percent for the observer scale and 15.8 percent for the patient scale, indicating good agreement. Conclusions: The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale is an appropriate subjective tool for the evaluation of linear scars